Week-4
Chapter-9
BULLS AND BEARS, BUT WHAT ABOUT WOMEN?
It is never easy to be part of an outgroup, but research indicates you may be able to bridge the gap by sharing information to build relationships. Ironically, women are traditionally good at this skill, but are sometimes in the outgroup simply because they’re women. People in the outgroup find it difficult to succeed even when they can objectively prove worthiness. The statistics suggest this may be the case on Wall Street. Although women make up half the workforce in the financial industry, few make it to the top of the executive ranks. Granted, the situation has improved since the 1980s, where women were few and far between, yet many are still concerned about the slow progress toward gender equality, especially in upper management.
Sallie Krawcheck (in photo) believes that her roller-coaster career is due to subtle group discrimination against her as a woman. She led Sanford C. Bernstein & Company until joining Citigroup in 2002 and eventually became chief financial officer. That lasted until 2007, when she was moved downward to oversee the brokerage unit. Then came Bank of America in 2009, where she worked until she was laid off in 2011 as a result of company restructuring.
Of course, Krawcheck was not the only person, male or female, who struggled with job security throughout the recent financial crisis. Yet she argues that the turmoil on Wall Street has resulted in a huge setback for women trying to reach the upper echelons of their companies. Why? The main reasons, she says, is that male executives are forming tighter, homogeneous groups that exclude women. “Think about it. You’re going through this horrible downturn. You’re a CEO. You want people who you worked with for 10 years or 20 years who you can trust. These moves have led to more homogeneous leadership teams.” In other words, if you’re female, you don’t fit in with the “old boys’ network.”
Irene Dorner, chief executive at HSBC, believes that exclusivity is a mistake. “I think you are insane commercially if you run any corporation and you turn down the opportunity for different views, innovation, and a different way of thinking,” she says. While it is natural for people to form groups based on their obvious similarities, such as gender, research indicates that diverse groups perform better.
Sources: E. Bernstein, “To Charm and Make Friends Fast: Share, Don’t Overshare,” The Wall Street Journal (February 19, 2013), p. D1; A. R. Sorkin, “Women in a Man’s World,” The New York Times (April 3, 2013), pp. F1, F2; and S. Craig, “Lessons on Being a Success on Wall St., and Being a Casualty,” The New York Times (April 3, 2013), p. F2.
Groups have their place—and their pitfalls. Before we discuss them, examine your own attitude toward working in groups. Take the following self-assessment and answer the accompanying questions.
The objectives of this chapter and Chapter 10 are to introduce you to basic group concepts, provide you with a foundation for understanding how groups work, and show you how to create effective teams. Let’s begin by defining a group and explaining why people join groups.
Do I Have a Negative Attitude Toward Working in Groups?
In the Self-Assessment Library (available in MyManagementLab), take assessment IV.E.1 (Do I Have a Negative Attitude Toward Working in Groups?), and answer the following questions.
Are you surprised by your results? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Do you think it is important to always have a positive attitude toward working in groups? Why or why not?
Defining and Classifying Groups
Define group, and distinguish the different types of groups.
We define a group as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives. Groups can be either formal or informal. By a formal group , we mean one defined by the organization’s structure, with designated work assignments establishing tasks. In formal groups, the behaviors team members should engage in are stipulated by and directed toward organizational goals. The six members of an airline flight crew are a formal group. In contrast, an informal group is neither formally structured nor organizationally determined. Informal groups are natural formations in the work environment that appear in response to the need for social contact. Three employees from different departments who regularly have lunch or coffee together are an informal group. These types of interactions among individuals, though informal, deeply affect their behavior and performance.
group
Two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives.
formal group
A designated work group defined by an organization’s structure.
informal group
A group that is neither formally structured nor organizationally determined; such a group appears in response to the need for social contact.
Why Do People Form Groups?
Why do people form groups, and why do they feel so strongly about them? Consider the celebrations that follow a sports team’s winning a national championship. Fans have staked their own self-image on the performance of someone else. The winner’s supporters are elated, and sales of team-related shirts, jackets, and hats declaring support for the team skyrocket. Fans of the losing team feel dejected, even embarrassed. Our tendency to take personal pride or offense for the accomplishments of a group is the territory of social identity theory .
social identity theory
Perspective that considers when and why individuals consider themselves members of groups.
Social identity theory proposes that people have emotional reactions to the failure or success of their group because their self-esteem gets tied into the group’s performance.1 When your group does well, you bask in reflected glory, and your own self-esteem rises. When your group does poorly, you might feel bad about yourself, or you might even reject that part of your identity, like “fair weather fans.” Social identities can even lead people to experience pleasure as a result of seeing another group suffer. We often see these feelings of schadenfreude as the joy fans experience when a hated team loses.2
People develop many identities through the course of their lives. You might define yourself in terms of the organization you work for, the city you live in, your profession, your religious background, your ethnicity, or your gender. A U.S. expatriate working in Rome might be very aware of being from the United States, for instance, but won’t give this national identity a second thought when transferring from Tulsa to Tucson.3
Social identities help us understand who we are and where we fit in with other people, but they can have a negative side as well. Beyond feelings of schadenfreude, ingroup favoritism occurs when we see members of our ingroup as better than other people and people not in our group as all the same. This obviously paves the way for stereotyping.
ingroup favoritism
Perspective in which we see members of our ingroup as better than other people, and people not in our group as all the same.
When do people develop a social identity? Several characteristics make a social identity important to a person:
Photo 9-1 Jeffrey Webster, director of human resources at a Nissan plant in Mississippi, serves as the director of a gospel choir at the facility. Choir members are a diverse group of employees who identify with each other as they all share a love of singing and performing for fellow workers, company executives, state officials, and community events.
Source: AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis.
Similarity. Not surprisingly, people who have the same values or characteristics as other members of their organization have higher levels of group identification.4 Demographic similarity can also lead to stronger identification for new hires, while those who are demographically different may have a hard time identifying with the group as a whole.5
Distinctiveness. People are more likely to notice identities that show how they are different from other groups. For example, veterinarians who work in veterinary medicine (where everyone is a veterinarian) identify with their organization, and veterinarians in nonveterinary medicine fields such as animal research or food inspection (where being a veterinarian is a more distinctive characteristic) identify with their profession.6
Status. Because people use identities to define themselves and increase self-esteem, it makes sense that they are most interested in linking themselves to high-status groups. People are likely to not identify with a low-status organization and will be more likely to quit in order to leave that identity behind.7
Uncertainty reduction. Membership in a group also helps some people understand who they are and how they fit into the world.8 One study showed how the creation of a spin-off company produced questions about how employees should develop a unique identity that corresponded more closely to what the division was becoming.9 Managers worked to define and communicate an idealized identity for the new organization when it became clear employees were confused.
Stages of Group Development
Identify the five stages of group development.
Groups generally pass through a predictable sequence in their evolution. Although not all groups follow this five-stage model, it is a useful framework for understanding group development. In this section, we describe the five-stage model and an alternative for temporary groups with deadlines.
The Five-Stage Model
As shown in Exhibit 9-1, the five-stage group-development model characterizes groups as proceeding through the distinct stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.10
five-stage group-development model
The five distinct stages groups go through: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
Exhibit 9-1
Stages of Group Development
The first stage, forming stage , is characterized by a great deal of uncertainty about the group’s purpose, structure, and leadership. Members “test the waters” to determine what types of behaviors are acceptable. This stage is complete when members have begun to think of themselves as part of a group.
forming stage
The first stage in group development, characterized by much uncertainty.
The storming stage is one of intragroup conflict. Members accept the existence of the group but resist the constraints it imposes on individuality. There is conflict over who will control the group. When this stage is complete, there will be a relatively clear hierarchy of leadership within the group.
storming stage
The second stage in group development, characterized by intragroup conflict.
In the third stage, close relationships develop and the group demonstrates cohesiveness. There is now a strong sense of group identity and camaraderie. This norming stage is complete when the group structure solidifies and the group has assimilated a common set of expectations of what defines correct member behavior.
norming stage
The third stage in group development, characterized by close relationships and cohesiveness.
The fourth stage is performing . The structure at this point is fully functional and accepted. Group energy has moved from getting to know and understand each other to performing the task at hand.
performing stage
The fourth stage in group development, during which the group is fully functional.
For permanent work groups, performing is the last stage in development. However, for temporary committees, teams, task forces, and similar groups that have a limited task to perform, the adjourning stage is for wrapping up activities and preparing to disband. Some group members are upbeat, basking in the group’s accomplishments. Others may be depressed over the loss of camaraderie and friendships gained during the work group’s life.
adjourning stage
The final stage in group development for temporary groups, characterized by concern with wrapping up activities rather than task performance.
Many interpreters of the five-stage model have assumed a group becomes more effective as it progresses through the first four stages. Although this may be generally true, what makes a group effective is actually more complex.11 First, groups proceed through the stages of group development at different rates. Those with a strong sense of purpose and strategy rapidly achieve high performance and improve over time, whereas those with less sense of purpose actually see their performance worsen over time. Similarly, groups that begin with a positive social focus appear to achieve the “performing” stage more rapidly. Nor do groups always proceed clearly from one stage to the next. Storming and performing can occur simultaneously, and groups can even regress to previous stages.
Note: Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) survey of 501 individuals and how drinking is viewed in their organization at a range of work-related activities. Source: Based on S. M. Heathfield, “To Drink or Not to Drink: Does Alcohol Drinking Mix Safely with Work Events?” About.com Guide (2013). http://humanresources.about.com/od/networking/qt/drink_i3.htm.
An Alternative Model for Temporary Groups with Deadlines
Temporary groups with deadlines don’t seem to follow the usual five-stage model. Studies indicate they have their own unique sequencing of actions (or inaction): (1) Their first meeting sets the group’s direction, (2) the first phase of group activity is one of inertia, (3) a transition takes place exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time, (4) this transition initiates major changes, (5) a second phase of inertia follows the transition, and (6) the group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity.12 This pattern, called the punctuated-equilibrium model , is shown in Exhibit 9-2.
punctuated-equilibrium model
A set of phases that temporary groups go through that involves transitions between inertia and activity.
Exhibit 9-2
The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model
The first meeting sets the group’s direction, and then a framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions through which the group will approach its project emerges, sometimes in the first few seconds of the group’s existence. Once set, the group’s direction is solidified and is unlikely to be reexamined throughout the first half of its life. This is a period of inertia—the group tends to stand still or become locked into a fixed course of action even if it gains new insights that challenge initial patterns and assumptions.
One of the most interesting discoveries in work team studies13 was that groups experienced their transition precisely halfway between the first meeting and the official deadline—whether members spent an hour on their project or 6 months. The midpoint appears to work like an alarm clock, heightening members’ awareness that their time is limited and they need to get moving. This transition ends phase 1 and is characterized by a concentrated burst of changes, dropping of old patterns, and adoption of new perspectives. The transition sets a revised direction for phase 2, a new equilibrium or period of inertia in which the group executes plans created during the transition period.
The group’s last meeting is characterized by a final burst of activity to finish its work. In summary, the punctuated-equilibrium model characterizes groups as exhibiting long periods of inertia interspersed with brief revolutionary changes triggered primarily by members’ awareness of time and deadlines. Keep in mind, however, that this model doesn’t apply to all groups but is suited to the finite quality of temporary task groups working under a time deadline.14
Group Properties: Roles, Norms, Status, Size, Cohesiveness, and Diversity
Show how role requirements change in different situations.
Work groups are not unorganized mobs; they have properties that shape members’ behavior and help explain and predict individual behavior within the group as well as the performance of the group itself. Some of these properties are roles, norms, status, size, cohesiveness, and diversity.
Group Property 1: Roles
Shakespeare said, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” Using the same metaphor, all group members are actors, each playing a role . By this term, we mean a set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit. Our understanding of role behavior would be dramatically simplified if each of us could choose one role and play it regularly and consistently. Instead, we are required to play a number of diverse roles, both on and off our jobs. As we’ll see, one of the tasks in understanding behavior is grasping the role a person is currently playing.
role
A set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit.
Bill is a plant manager with EMM Industries, a large electrical equipment manufacturer in Phoenix. He fulfills a number of roles—EMM employee, member of middle management, electrical engineer, and primary company spokesperson in the community. Off the job, Bill finds himself in still more roles: husband, father, Catholic, tennis player, member of the Thunderbird Country Club, and president of his homeowners’ association. Many of these roles are compatible; some create conflicts. How does Bill’s religious commitment influence his managerial decisions regarding layoffs, expense account padding, and provision of accurate information to government agencies? A recent offer of promotion requires Bill to relocate, yet his family wants to stay in Phoenix. Can the role demands of his job be reconciled with the demands of his husband and father roles?
Like Bill we are all required to play a number of roles, and our behavior varies with each. Different groups impose different role requirements on individuals.
Role Perception
Our view of how we’re supposed to act in a given situation is a role perception . We get role perceptions from stimuli all around us—for example, friends, books, films, television, as when we form an impression of the work of doctors from watching Grey’s Anatomy. Of course, the primary reason apprenticeship programs exist in many trades and professions is to allow beginners to watch an expert so they can learn to act as they should.
role perception
An individual’s view of how he or she is supposed to act in a given situation.
Role Expectations
Role expectations are the way others believe you should act in a given context. A U.S. federal judge is viewed as having propriety and dignity, while a football coach is seen as aggressive, dynamic, and inspiring to his players.
role expectations
How others believe a person should act in a given situation.
In the workplace, we look at role expectations through the perspective of the psychological contract : an unwritten agreement that exists between employees and employer. This agreement sets out mutual expectations: what management expects from workers and vice versa.15 Management is expected to treat employees justly, provide acceptable working conditions, clearly communicate what is a fair day’s work, and give feedback on how well an employee is doing. Employees are expected to respond by demonstrating a good attitude, following directions, and showing loyalty to the organization.
psychological contract
An unwritten agreement that sets out what management expects from an employee and vice versa.
Photo 9-2 Les Hatton, manager of a new Recreational Equipment Inc. store in Manhattan, pumps up employees before the store’s grand opening. Part of the psychological contract between REI and its employees is the expectation that salespeople will display enthusiasm and generate excitement in welcoming and serving customers.
Source: Matt Peyton/AP Images for REI.
What happens if management is derelict in keeping its part of the bargain? We can expect negative effects on employee performance and satisfaction. One study among restaurant managers found that psychological contract violations were related to greater intentions to quit the job, while another study of a variety of different industries found they were associated with lower levels of productivity, higher levels of theft, and greater work withdrawal.16 However, there is evidence that perceptions of psychological contracts vary across cultures. In France, where people are individualist and power is more asymmetric, contracts are perceived as self-interested yet favoring the more powerful party. In Canada, where people are individualist but power is more symmetric, contracts are perceived as self-interested yet focused on balanced reciprocity. In China, where people are collectivist and power is more asymmetric, contracts are perceived as going beyond the work context into employees’ lives. And in Norway, where people are collectivist but power is more symmetric, contracts are perceived as more relational and based on trust.17
Role Conflict
When compliance with one role requirement may make it difficult to comply with another, the result is role conflict .18 At the extreme, two or more role expectations are mutually contradictory.
role conflict
A situation in which an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations.
From the example on pp. 248–249, Bill had to deal with role conflicts, such as his attempt to reconcile the expectations placed on him as a husband and father with those placed on him as an executive with EMM Industries. Bill’s wife and children want to remain in Phoenix, while EMM expects its employees to be responsive to the company’s needs and requirements. Although it might be in Bill’s financial and career interests to accept a relocation, the conflict comes down to choosing between family and career role expectations. Indeed, a great deal of research demonstrates that conflict between work and family roles is one of the most significant sources of stress for most employees.19
Most employees are simultaneously in occupations, work groups, divisions, and demographic groups, and these different identities can come into conflict when the expectations of one clash with the expectations of another.20 During mergers and acquisitions, employees can be torn between their identities as members of their original organization and of the new parent company.21 Organizations structured around multinational operations also have been shown to lead to dual identification, with employees distinguishing between the local division and the international organization.22
Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment
One of the most illuminating role and identity experiments was done a number of years ago by Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his associates.23 They created a “prison” in the basement of the Stanford psychology building, hired at $15 a day two dozen emotionally stable, physically healthy, law-abiding students who scored “normal average” on extensive personality tests, randomly assigned them the role of either “guard” or “prisoner”, and established some basic rules.
It took little time for the “prisoners” to accept the authority positions of the “guards” and for the mock guards to adjust to their new authority roles. Consistent with social identity theory, the guards came to see the prisoners as a negative outgroup, and their comments to researchers showed they had developed stereotypes about the “typical” prisoner personality type. After the guards crushed a rebellion attempt on the second day, the prisoners became increasingly passive. Whatever the guards “dished out,” the prisoners took. The prisoners actually began to believe and act inferior and powerless, as the guards constantly reminded them. Every guard, at some time during the simulation, engaged in abusive, authoritative behavior. One said, “I was surprised at myself. . . . I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle, and I kept thinking: ‘I have to watch out for them in case they try something.’ ” Surprisingly, during the entire experiment—even after days of abuse—not one prisoner said, “Stop this. I’m a student like you. This is just an experiment!”
The simulation actually proved too successful in demonstrating how quickly individuals learn new roles. The researchers had to end it after only 6 days because of the participants’ pathological reactions. And remember, these were individuals chosen precisely for their normalcy and emotional stability.
What can we conclude from this prison simulation? Like the rest of us, the participants had learned stereotyped conceptions of guard and prisoner roles from the mass media and their own personal experiences in power and powerlessness relationships gained at home (parent–child), in school (teacher–student), and in other situations. This background allowed them easily and rapidly to assume roles very different from their inherent personalities and, with no prior personality pathology or training in the parts they were playing, execute extreme forms of behavior consistent with those roles.
A follow-up reality television show conducted by the BBC that used a lower-fidelity simulated prison setting provides some insights into these results.24 The BBC results were dramatically different from those of the Stanford experiment. The “guards” were far more careful in their behavior and limited the aggressive treatment of “prisoners.” They often described their concerns about how their actions might be perceived. In short, they did not fully take on their roles, possibly because they knew their behavior was being observed by millions of viewers. Philip Zimbardo has contended that the BBC study is not a replication of his study for several reasons, but he acknowledges the results demonstrate how both guards and prisoners act differently when closely monitored. These results suggest abuse of roles can be limited when people are made conscious of their behavior.
Myth or Science? “U.S. Workers Are More Biased Than Asians”
This statement has some truth to it. But first let’s review what we mean by “bias.”
When people are placed into groups, they often exhibit an ingroup bias—they tend to favor members of their group regardless of whether they deserve it. Characteristics such as race, gender, and nationality are commonly investigated causes of ingroup bias. However, nearly any identity can activate ingroup bias, even when individuals are randomly assigned to groups and given a group identity. So, if you’re placed arbitrarily in the “Slytherin” group, you automatically favor them over “Hufflepuff,” “Gryffindor,” and “Ravenclaw.”
Ingroup bias happens because when group identity is salient to people—which it often is—they tend to simplify; they see themselves as more similar to other group members, and less similar to outgroup members, than is really the case.
Recent research suggests that Asians exhibit less ingroup bias than U.S. workers. One study asked Chinese students at Peking University and U.S. students at University of California–Berkeley to describe the degree to which a set of 16 favorable/unfavorable characteristics (intelligent/foolish, loyal/undependable) described the family member they were closest to. Chinese students described their closest family members significantly less favorably than did the U.S. students. In another study, when Chinese and U.S. subjects were asked to evaluate cultural stereotypes of their nationalities in general (intelligent, hard-working, leaderlike, and so on), the U.S. respondents were more likely to favor their group than were the Chinese.
Although Asians demonstrate less ingroup bias, they appear to stereotype more than U.S. workers. In other words, they tend to ascribe individual traits to entire groups of people and then infer traits on the basis of a person’s perceived group membership (“information technology people are nerdy; Jerry works in information technology, therefore Jerry is nerdy”). Why do these differences exist? Regarding intergroup bias, it may be that Asians score higher on dialecticism—the tendency to be more comfortable with contradiction (yin and yang), change (nothing is permanent), and holism (everything has both good and bad). Regarding stereotyping, it may be that Asians, because they are more collectivist than U.S. workers, place a greater importance on social groups and thus arrange their perceptions more in terms of group memberships.
Sources: C. Ma-Kellams, J. Spencer-Rodgers, and K. Peng, “I Am Against Us? Unpacking Cultural Differences in Ingroup Favoritism Via Dialecticism,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37, no. 1 (2011), pp. 15–27; A. E. Giannakakis and I. Fritsche, “Social Identities, Group Norms, and Threat: On the Malleability of Ingroup Bias,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37, no. 1 (2011), pp. 82–93; T. E. DiDonato, J. Ullrich, and J. I. Krueger, “Social Perception as Induction and Inference: An Integrative Model of Intergroup Differentiation, Ingroup Favoritism, and Differential Accuracy,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100, no. 1 (2011), pp. 66–83; and J. Spencer-Rodgers, M. J. Williams, D. L. Hamilton, K. Peng, and L. Wang, “Culture and Group Perception: Dispositional and Stereotypic Inferences About Novel and National Groups,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93, no. 4 (2007), pp. 525–543.
Do I Trust Others?
In the Self-Assessment Library (available in MyManagementLab), take assessment II.B.3 (Do I Trust Others?). You can also check out assessment II.B.4 (Do Others See Me as Trusting?).
Group Property 2: Norms
Demonstrate how norms and status exert influence on an individual’s behavior.
Did you ever notice that golfers don’t speak while their partners are putting on the green or that employees don’t criticize their bosses in public? Why not? The answer is norms.
All groups have established norms —acceptable standards of behavior shared by their members that express what they ought and ought not to do under certain circumstances. When agreed to and accepted by the group, norms influence members’ behavior with a minimum of external controls. Different groups, communities, and societies have different norms, but they all have them.25
norms
Acceptable standards of behavior within a group that are shared by the group’s members.
Norms can cover virtually any aspect of group behavior.26 Probably the most common is a performance norm, providing explicit cues about how hard members should work, what the level of output should be, how to get the job done, what level of tardiness is appropriate, and the like. These norms are extremely powerful and are capable of significantly modifying a performance prediction based solely on ability and level of personal motivation. Other norms include appearance norms (dress codes, unspoken rules about when to look busy), social arrangement norms (with whom to eat lunch, whether to form friendships on and off the job), and resource allocation norms (assignment of difficult jobs, distribution of resources like pay or equipment).
The Hawthorne Studies
Full-scale appreciation of the influence of norms on worker behavior did not occur until the early 1930s, following studies undertaken between 1924 and 1932 at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago.27
The Hawthorne researchers began by examining the relationship between the physical environment and productivity. As they increased the light level for the experimental group of workers, output rose for that unit and the control group. But to their surprise, as they dropped the light level in the experimental group, productivity continued to increase in both groups. In fact, productivity in the experimental group decreased only when the light intensity had been reduced to that of moonlight.
As a follow-up, the researchers began a second set of experiments at Western Electric. A small group of women assembling telephone relays was isolated from the main work group so their behavior could be more carefully observed. Observations covering a multiyear period found this small group’s output increased steadily. The number of personal and out-sick absences was approximately one-third that recorded by women in the regular production department. It became evident this group’s performance was significantly influenced by its status as “special.” The members thought being in the experimental group was fun, that they were in an elite group, and that management showed concern about their interests by engaging in such experimentation. In essence, workers in both the illumination and assembly-test-room experiments were really reacting to the increased attention they received.
A third study, in the bank wiring observation room, was introduced to study the effect of a sophisticated wage incentive plan. The most important finding was that employees did not individually maximize their output. Rather, their output became controlled by a group norm that determined a proper day’s work. Interviews determined the group was operating well below its capability and leveling output to protect itself. Members were afraid that if they significantly increased their output, the unit incentive rate would be cut, the expected daily output would be increased, layoffs might occur, or slower workers would be reprimanded. So the group established its idea of a fair output—neither too much nor too little. Members helped each other ensure their reports were nearly level.
Photo 9-3 From studies of employees at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago, researchers gained valuable insights into how individual behavior is influenced by group norms. They also learned that money was less a factor in determining worker output than were group standards, sentiments, and security.
Source: Hawthorne Works Factory of Morton College.
The norms the group established included a number of “don’ts.” Don’t be a rate-buster, turning out too much work. Don’t be a chiseler, turning out too little work. Don’t squeal on any of your peers. How did the group enforce these norms? The methods included sarcasm, name-calling, ridicule, and even punches to the upper arm of any member who violated the group’s norms. Members also ostracized individuals whose behavior was against the group’s interest.
Conformity
As a member of a group, you desire acceptance by the group. Thus, you are susceptible to conforming to the group’s norms. Considerable evidence suggests that groups can place strong pressures on individual members to change their attitudes and behaviors to conform to the group’s standard.28 There are numerous reasons for conformity, with recent research highlighting the importance of a desire to form accurate perceptions of reality based on group consensus, to develop meaningful social relationships with others, and to maintain a favorable self-concept.
The impact that group pressures for conformity can have on an individual member’s judgment was demonstrated in studies by Solomon Asch.29 Asch made up groups of seven or eight people who were asked to compare two cards held by the experimenter. One card had one line, and the other had three lines of varying length, one of which was identical to the line on the one-line card, as Exhibit 9-3 shows. The difference in line length was quite obvious; in fact, under ordinary conditions, subjects made fewer than 1 percent errors in announcing aloud which of the three lines matched the single line. But what happens if members of the group begin giving incorrect answers? Will pressure to conform cause an unsuspecting subject (USS) to alter an answer? Asch arranged the group so only the USS was unaware the experiment was rigged. The seating was prearranged so the USS was one of the last to announce a decision.
conformity
The adjustment of one’s behavior to align with the norms of the group.
The experiment began with several sets of matching exercises. All the subjects gave the right answers. On the third set, however, the first subject gave an obviously wrong answer—for example, saying “C” in Exhibit 9-3. The next subject gave the same wrong answer, and so did the others. Now the dilemma confronting the USS was this: publicly state a perception that differs from the announced position of the others in the group, or give an incorrect answer in order to agree with the others.
An Ethical Choice Using Peer Pressure as an Influence Tactic
We’ve all experienced peer pressure, and it can be hard to behave differently from your friends and co-workers. As more work in organizations is performed in groups and teams, the possibilities and pitfalls of such pressure have become an increasingly important ethical issue for managers.
Peer pressure can be a positive force in some ways. In groups or departments where high effort and performance are the norms, peer pressure from co-workers, whether direct or indirect, can encourage high performance from those not meeting expectations. For example, vehicle accidents at a Ghanaian gold mine were lowered when good drivers, rather than managers or staff professionals, trained new drivers. A team with a norm toward behaving ethically could also use peer pressure directly to minimize negative behavior. Thus, peer pressure can promote all sorts of good behaviors, from donating to charity to working for the Salvation Army.
However, as the chapter has shown, peer pressure can also be destructive. It can create a feeling of exclusion in those who do not go along with group norms and can be very stressful and hurtful for those who don’t see eye-to-eye with the rest of the group. Peer pressure itself might become an unethical practice that unduly influences workers’ behavior and thoughts. And while groups might pressure others into performing good behaviors, they can just as easily pressure them into performing bad behaviors.
Should you use group peer pressure? As a leader, you may need to. One recent survey found that only 6 percent of leaders reported being able to successfully influence their employees. If you do use peer pressure to encourage individuals to work toward team goals and behave consistently with organizational values, it can enhance ethical performance. But your behavior should emphasize acceptance and rewarding of positive behavior, rather than rejection and exclusion, as a means of getting everyone to behave consistently in a group.
Sources: Based on: A. Verghese, “The Healing Power of Peer Pressure,” Newsweek (March 14, 2011), www.newsweek.com; T. Rosenberg, Join the Club: How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011); J. Meer, “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Peer Pressure in Charitable Solicitation,” Journal of Public Economics 95, no. 7–8 (2011), pp. 926–941; and L. Potter, “Lack Influence at Work? Why Most Leaders Struggle to Lead Positive Change,” The Wall Street Journal (May 14, 2013), downloaded on May 28, 2013, from www.online.wsj.com.
Exhibit 9-3
Examples of Cards Used in Asch’s Study
The results over many experiments and trials showed 75 percent of subjects gave at least one answer that conformed—that they knew was wrong but was consistent with the replies of other group members—and the average conformer gave wrong answers 37 percent of the time. What meaning can we draw from these results? They suggest group norms press us toward conformity. We desire to be one of the group and therefore avoid being visibly different.
This research was conducted more than 50 years ago. Has time altered the conclusions’ validity? And should we consider them generalizable across cultures? Evidence indicates levels of conformity have steadily declined since Asch’s studies in the early 1950s, and his findings are culture-bound.30 Conformity to social norms is higher in collectivist cultures, but it is still a powerful force in groups in individualist countries.
Do individuals conform to the pressures of all groups to which they belong? Obviously not, because people belong to many groups, and their norms vary and sometimes are contradictory. People conform to the important groups to which they belong or hope to belong. These important groups are reference groups , in which a person is aware of other members, defines himself or herself as a member or would like to be a member, and feels group members are significant to him or her. The implication, then, is that all groups do not impose equal conformity pressures on their members.
reference groups
Important groups to which individuals belong or hope to belong and with those whose norms individuals are likely to conform.
Deviant Workplace Behavior
LeBron is frustrated by a co-worker who constantly spreads malicious and unsubstantiated rumors about him. Debra is tired of a member of her work team who, when confronted with a problem, takes out his frustration by yelling and screaming at her and other members. And Mi-Cha recently quit her job as a dental hygienist after being constantly sexually harassed by her employer.
What do these three episodes have in common? They represent employees exposed to acts of deviant workplace behavior.31 Deviant workplace behavior (also called antisocial behavior or workplace incivility) is voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in doing so, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members. Exhibit 9-4 provides a typology of deviant workplace behaviors, with examples of each.
deviant workplace behavior
Voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members. Also called antisocial behavior or workplace incivility.
Category Examples
Production Leaving early
Intentionally working slowly
Wasting resources
Property Sabotage
Lying about hours worked
Stealing from the organization
Political Showing favoritism
Gossiping and spreading rumors
Blaming co-workers
Personal aggression Sexual harassment
Verbal abuse
Stealing from co-workers
Exhibit 9-4
Typology of Deviant Workplace Behavior
Source: Based on S. L. Robinson and R. J. Bennett, “A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study,” Academy of Management Journal (April 1995), p. 565. Copyright 1995 by Academy of Management (NY); S. H. Appelbaum, G. D. Iaconi, and A. Matousek, “Positive and Negative Deviant Workplace Behaviors: Causes, Impacts, and Solutions,” Corporate Governance 7, no. 5 (2007), pp. 586–598; and R. W. Griffin, and A. O’Leary-Kelly, The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior (New York: Wiley, 2004).
Few organizations will admit to creating or condoning conditions that encourage and maintain deviant norms. Yet they exist. Employees report an increase in rudeness and disregard toward others by bosses and co-workers in recent years. And nearly half of employees who have suffered this incivility say it has led them to think about changing jobs; 12 percent actually quit because of it.32 A study of nearly 1,500 respondents found that in addition to increasing turnover intentions, incivility at work increased reports of psychological stress and physical illness.33 Recent research also suggests that lack of sleep, which hinders a person’s ability to regulate emotions and behaviors, can lead to deviant behavior. As organizations have tried to do more with less, pushing their employees to work extra hours, they may indirectly be facilitating deviant behavior.34
Like norms in general, individual employees’ antisocial actions are shaped by the group context within which they work. Evidence demonstrates deviant workplace behavior is likely to flourish where it’s supported by group norms.35 Workers who socialize either at or outside work with people who are frequently absent from work are more likely to be absent themselves.36 What this means for managers is that when deviant workplace norms surface, employee cooperation, commitment, and motivation are likely to suffer.
What are the consequences of workplace deviance for teams? Some research suggests a chain reaction occurs in a group with high levels of dysfunctional behavior.37 The process begins with negative behaviors like shirking, undermining co-workers, or being generally uncooperative. As a result of these behaviors, the team collectively starts to have negative moods. These negative moods then result in poor coordination of effort and lower levels of group performance, especially when there is a lot of nonverbal negative communication between members.
Group Property 3: Status
Status —a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others—permeates every society. Even the smallest group will develop roles, rights, and rituals to differentiate its members. Status is a significant motivator and has major behavioral consequences when individuals perceive a disparity between what they believe their status is and what others perceive it to be.
status
A socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others.
Photo 9-4 Winning a brown apron in a Starbucks Ambassador Cup competition is a symbol of high status that signifies achieving the highest level of coffee knowledge. Held throughout the world, the contests involve making coffee drinks, identifying coffees in blind taste tests, and testing contestants’ knowledge about the coffee industry.
Source: Erika Schultz/MCT/Newscom.
What Determines Status?
According to status characteristics theory , status tends to derive from one of three sources:38
status characteristics theory
A theory that states that differences in status characteristics create status hierarchies within groups.
The power a person wields over others. Because they likely control the group’s resources, people who control the outcomes tend to be perceived as high status.
A person’s ability to contribute to a group’s goals. People whose contributions are critical to the group’s success tend to have high status. Some thought NBA star Kobe Bryant had more say over player decisions than his coaches (though not as much as Bryant wanted!).
An individual’s personal characteristics. Someone whose personal characteristics are positively valued by the group (good looks, intelligence, money, or a friendly personality) typically has higher status than someone with fewer valued attributes.
Status and Norms
Status has some interesting effects on the power of norms and pressures to conform. High-status individuals are often given more freedom to deviate from norms than are other group members.39 Physicians actively resist administrative decisions made by lower-ranking insurance company employees.40 High-status people are also better able to resist conformity pressures than their lower-status peers. An individual who is highly valued by a group but doesn’t need or care about the group’s social rewards is particularly able to disregard conformity norms.41 Research indicates that bringing high-status members into a group may improve performance, but only up to a point, perhaps because they may introduce counterproductive norms.42
Status and Group Interaction
High-status people tend to be more assertive group members.43 They speak out more often, criticize more, state more commands, and interrupt others more often. But status differences actually inhibit diversity of ideas and creativity in groups because lower-status members tend to participate less actively in group discussions. When they possess expertise and insights that could aid the group, failure to fully utilize them reduces the group’s overall performance.
Status Inequity
It is important for group members to believe the status hierarchy is equitable. Perceived inequity creates disequilibrium, which inspires various types of corrective behavior. Hierarchical groups can lead to resentment among those at the lower end of the status continuum. Large differences in status within groups are also associated with poorer individual performance, lower health, and higher intentions to leave the group.44
Groups generally agree within themselves on status criteria; hence, there is usually high concurrence in group rankings of individuals. Managers who occupy central positions in their social networks are typically seen as higher in status by their subordinates, and this position translates into greater influence over the group’s functioning.45 Groups generally form an informal status order based on ranking and who has access to needed resources.46 Individuals can find themselves in conflicts when they move between groups whose status criteria are different, or when they join groups whose members have heterogeneous backgrounds. Business executives may use personal income or the growth rate of their companies as determinants of status. Government bureaucrats may use the size of their budgets, and blue-collar workers may use their years of seniority. Cultures also differ in their criteria for conferring status upon individuals. When groups are heterogeneous or when heterogeneous groups must be interdependent, status differences may initiate conflict as the group attempts to reconcile the differing hierarchies. As we’ll see in Chapter 10, this can be a problem when management creates teams of employees from varied functions.
Status and Stigmatization
Although it’s clear that your own status affects the way people perceive you, the status of people with whom you are affiliated can also affect others’ views of you. Studies have shown that people who are stigmatized against can “infect” others with their stigma. This “stigma by association” effect can result in negative opinions and evaluations of the person affiliated with the stigmatized individual, even if the association is brief and purely coincidental. For example, men interviewing for a job were viewed as less qualified when they were sitting next to an obese woman in a waiting room. Another study looking at the effects of being associated with an overweight person found that even when onlookers were told the target person and the overweight person were unrelated, the target person was still devalued.47
While affiliating with a stigmatized individual can damage a person’s reputation, the opposite is true when it comes to affiliating with a high-status person. It’s not the actual relationship that matters; all that’s important for the target person to garner a more favorable reputation is for people to perceive a relationship with the high-status person exists.48 Although this likely sounds (and is) highly unfair, it appears that George Washington was on to something when he encouraged people to, “Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation for ‘tis better to be alone than in bad company.”
Group Property 4: Size
Show how group size affects group performance.
Does the size of a group affect the group’s overall behavior? Yes, but the effect depends on what dependent variables we look at. Groups with a dozen or more members are good for gaining diverse input. If the goal is fact-finding, larger groups should be more effective. Smaller groups of about seven members are better at doing something productive with that input.
One of the most important findings about the size of a group concerns social loafing , the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than alone.49 It directly challenges the assumption that the productivity of the group as a whole should at least equal the sum of the productivity of the individuals in it.
social loafing
The tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually.
Photo 9-5 Although social loafing is consistent with individualistic cultures, it is not consistent with collectivist societies such as China. The young employees shown here celebrating the opening of a new KFC restaurant in Shanghai are motivated by ingroup goals and perform better in a group than they do by working individually.
Source: Chen Fei/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom.
Does team spirit spur individual effort and enhance a group’s overall productivity? In the late 1920s, German psychologist Max Ringelmann compared the results of individual and group performance on a rope-pulling task.50 He expected that three people pulling together should exert three times as much pull on a rope as one person, and eight people eight times as much. But one person pulling on a rope alone exerted an average of 63 kilograms of force. In groups of three, the per-person force dropped to 53 kilograms. And in groups of eight, it fell to only 31 kilograms per person.
Replications of Ringelmann’s research with similar tasks have generally supported his findings.51 Total group performance increases with group size, but the addition of new members has diminishing returns on individual productivity. So more may be better in that total productivity of a group of four is greater than that of three, but the individual productivity of each member declines.
What causes social loafing? It may be a belief that others in the group are not carrying their fair share. If you see others as lazy or inept, you can reestablish equity by reducing your effort. But simply failing to contribute may not be enough to be labeled a “free rider.” Instead, the group must believe the social loafer is acting in an exploitive manner (benefitting at the expense of other team members).52 Another explanation for social loafing is the dispersion of responsibility. Because group results cannot be attributed to any single person, the relationship between an individual’s input and the group’s output is clouded. Individuals may then be tempted to become free riders and coast on the group’s efforts. The implications for OB are significant. When managers use collective work situations to enhance morale and teamwork, they must also be able to identify individual efforts. Otherwise, they must weigh the potential losses in productivity from using groups against the possible gains in worker satisfaction.53
Social loafing appears to have a Western bias. It’s consistent with individualist cultures, such as the United States and Canada, that are dominated by self-interest. It is not consistent with collectivist societies, in which individuals are motivated by in-group goals. In studies comparing U.S. employees with employees from the People’s Republic of China and Israel (both collectivist societies), the Chinese and Israelis showed no propensity to engage in social loafing and actually performed better in a group than alone.
Recent research indicates that the stronger an individual’s work ethic is, the less likely that person is to engage in social loafing.54 There are also several ways to prevent social loafing: (1) set group goals, so the group has a common purpose to strive toward; (2) increase intergroup competition, which focuses on the shared outcome; (3) engage in peer evaluation, so each person evaluates each other person’s contribution; (4) select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in groups; and (5) if possible, base group rewards in part on each member’s unique contributions.55 Although no magic bullet will prevent social loafing in all cases, these steps should help minimize its effect.
Group Property 5: Cohesiveness
Contrast the benefits and disadvantages of cohesive groups.
Groups differ in their cohesiveness —the degree to which members are attracted to each other and motivated to stay in the group. Some work groups are cohesive because the members have spent a great deal of time together, the group’s small size facilitates high interaction, or external threats have brought members close together.
cohesiveness
The degree to which group members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group.
Cohesiveness affects group productivity. Studies consistently show that the relationship between cohesiveness and productivity depends on the group’s performance-related norms.56 If norms for quality, output, and cooperation with outsiders are high, for instance, a cohesive group will be more productive than will a less cohesive group. But if cohesiveness is high and performance norms are low, productivity will be low. If cohesiveness is low and performance norms are high, productivity increases, but less than in the high-cohesiveness/high-norms situation. When cohesiveness and performance-related norms are both low, productivity tends to fall into the low-to-moderate range. These conclusions are summarized in Exhibit 9-5.
What can you do to encourage group cohesiveness? (1) Make the group smaller, (2) encourage agreement with group goals, (3) increase the time members spend together, (4) increase the group’s status and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership, (5) stimulate competition with other groups, (6) give rewards to the group rather than to individual members, and (7) physically isolate the group.57
Group Property 6: Diversity
glOBalization! Making Global Virtual Teams Effective
Having a group whose members live and work in different countries once seemed impossible, but today virtual teams have become relatively common. In some cases, the group members never meet face-to-face, instead conducting all their work over e-mail, phone calls, and videoconferencing tools such as Skype.
Although global virtual teams present challenges, such as ensuring smooth coordination, establishing trust, and overcoming cultural differences in communication, they also present opportunities. Many companies utilize them to make sure the most qualified individuals are assigned to top projects.
Besides providing advanced technology to facilitate communication, organizations can do a number of things to make it more likely that global virtual teams succeed. These include ensuring sufficient time for preparation activities such as setting goals, formulating group strategy, and conducting ongoing analyses of the group’s mission. This preparation, along with making tasks interdependent to create the need for collaborative interaction, ensures that everyone in the group has the same understanding of who knows what and who does what.
If you find yourself on a global virtual team, be aware that individuals from different cultures arrive at decisions differently. For example, while U.S. managers prefer to gather input from others and quickly implement a decision, managers from Sweden lean toward consensus building, which although lengthy can lead to greater commitment to the ultimate decision. And in France, debate and conflict are viewed as part of good decision making. Thus, both organizations and employees need to recognize that global virtual teams often require different strategies from traditional teams in order to be effective.
Sources: E. Meyer, “The Four Keys to Success with Virtual Teams,” Forbes (August 19, 2010), downloaded on May 31, 2013, from www.forbes.com; and M. T. Maynard, J. E. Mathieu, T. L. Rapp, and L. L. Gibson, “Something(s) Old and Something(s) New: Modeling Drivers of Global Virtual Team Effectiveness,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 33 (2012), pp. 342–365.
Exhibit 9-5
Relationship Between Group Cohesiveness,Performance Norms, and Productivity
Explain the implications of diversity for group effectiveness.
The final property of groups we consider is diversity in the group’s membership, or the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one another. A great deal of research is being done on how diversity influences group performance. Some research looks at cultural diversity and some at racial, gender, and other differences. Overall, studies identify both costs and benefits from group diversity.
diversity
The extent to which members of a group are similar to, or different from, one another.
Diversity appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early stages of a group’s tenure, which often lowers group morale and raises dropout rates. One study compared groups that were culturally diverse (composed of people from different countries) and homogeneous (composed of people from the same country). On a wilderness survival exercise (not unlike the Experiential Exercise at the end of this chapter), the groups performed equally well, but the members from the diverse groups were less satisfied with their groups, were less cohesive, and had more conflict.58 Another study examined the effect of differences in tenure on the performance of 67 engineering research and development groups.59 When most people had roughly the same level of tenure, performance was high, but as tenure diversity increased, performance dropped off. There was an important qualifier: Higher levels of tenure diversity were not related to lower performance for groups when there were effective team-oriented human resources practices. Teams in which members’ values or opinions differ tend to experience more conflict, but leaders who can get the group to focus on the task at hand and encourage group learning are able to reduce these conflicts and enhance discussion of group issues.60 It seems diversity can be bad for performance even in creative teams, but appropriate organizational support and leadership might offset the problems.
Culturally and demographically diverse groups may perform better over time—if they can get over their initial conflicts. Why might this be so?
Surface-level diversity—in observable characteristics such as national origin, race, and gender—alerts people to possible deep-level diversity—in underlying attitudes, values, and opinions. One researcher argues, “The mere presence of diversity you can see, such as a person’s race or gender, actually cues a team that there’s likely to be differences of opinion.”61 Although those differences can lead to conflict, they also provide an opportunity to solve problems in unique ways.
One study of jury behavior found diverse juries more likely to deliberate longer, share more information, and make fewer factual errors when discussing evidence. Two studies of MBA student groups found surface-level diversity led to greater openness even without deep-level diversity. Here, surface-level diversity may subconsciously cue team members to be more open-minded in their views.62
The impact of diversity on groups is mixed. It is difficult to be in a diverse group in the short term. However, if members can weather their differences, over time diversity may help them be more open-minded and creative and to do better. But even positive effects are unlikely to be especially strong. As one review stated, “The business case (in terms of demonstrable financial results) for diversity remains hard to support based on the extant research.”63
Faultlines
One possible side effect in diverse teams—especially those that are diverse in terms of surface level characteristics—is faultlines , or perceived divisions that split groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as sex, race, age, work experience, and education.
faultlines
The perceived divisions that split groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as sex, race, age, work experience, and education.
For example, let’s say group A is composed of three men and three women. The three men have approximately the same amount of work experience and backgrounds in marketing. The three women also have about the same amount of work experience and backgrounds in finance. Group B has three men and three women, but they all differ in terms of their experience and backgrounds. Two of the men are relatively experienced, while the other is new. One of the women has worked at the company for several years, while the other two are new. In addition, two of the men and one woman in group B have backgrounds in marketing, while the other men and the remaining two women have backgrounds in finance. It is thus likely that a faultline will result in subgroups of males and females in group A but not in group B.
Research on faultlines has shown that splits are generally detrimental to group functioning and performance. Subgroups may wind up competing with each other, which takes time away from core tasks and harms group performance. Groups that have subgroups learn more slowly, make more risky decisions, are less creative, and experience higher levels of conflict. Subgroups are less likely to trust each other. Finally, although the overall group’s satisfaction is lower when faultlines are present, satisfaction with subgroups is generally high.64
Are faultlines ever a good thing? One study suggested that faultlines based on differences in skill, knowledge, and expertise could be beneficial when the groups were in organizational cultures that strongly emphasized results. Why? A results-driven culture focuses people’s attention on what’s important to the company rather than on problems arising from subgroups.65 Another study showed that problems stemming from strong faultlines based on gender and educational major were counteracted when their roles were cross-cut and the group as a whole was given a common goal to strive for. Together, these strategies force collaboration between members of subgroups and focus their efforts on accomplishing a goal that transcends the boundary imposed by the faultline.66
Overall, although research on faultlines suggests that diversity in groups is a potential double-edged sword, recent work indicates they can be strategically employed to improve performance.
Group Decision Making
Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.
The belief—characterized by juries—that two heads are better than one has long been accepted as a basic component of the U.S. legal system and those of many other countries. Today, many decisions in organizations are made by groups, teams, or committees.
Groups versus the Individual
Decision-making groups may be widely used in organizations, but are group decisions preferable to those made by an individual alone? The answer depends on a number of factors. Let’s begin by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.67
Strengths of Group Decision Making
Groups generate more complete information and knowledge. By aggregating the resources of several individuals, groups bring more input as well as heterogeneity into the decision process. They offer increased diversity of views. This opens up the opportunity to consider more approaches and alternatives. Finally, groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution. Group members who participated in making a decision are more likely to enthusiastically support and encourage others to accept it.
Weaknesses of Group Decision Making
Group decisions are time consuming because groups typically take more time to reach a solution. There are conformity pressures. The desire by group members to be accepted and considered an asset to the group can squash any overt disagreement. Group discussion can be dominated by one or a few members. If they’re low- and medium-ability members, the group’s overall effectiveness will suffer. Finally, group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility. In an individual decision, it’s clear who is accountable for the final outcome. In a group decision, the responsibility of any single member is diluted.
Effectiveness and Efficiency
Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on how you define effectiveness. Group decisions are generally more accurate than the decisions of the average individual in a group, but less accurate than the judgments of the most accurate.68 In terms of speed, individuals are superior. If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effective. And if effectiveness means the degree of acceptance the final solution achieves, the nod again goes to the group.69
But we cannot consider effectiveness without also assessing efficiency. With few exceptions, group decision making consumes more work hours than an individual tackling the same problem alone. The exceptions tend to be the instances in which, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talking to other people. In deciding whether to use groups, then, managers must assess whether increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the reductions in efficiency.
Summary
In summary, groups are an excellent vehicle for performing many steps in the decision-making process and offer both breadth and depth of input for information gathering. If group members have diverse backgrounds, the alternatives generated should be more extensive and the analysis more critical. When the final solution is agreed on, there are more people in a group decision to support and implement it. These pluses, however, can be more than offset by the time consumed by group decisions, the internal conflicts they create, and the pressures they generate toward conformity. In some cases, therefore, we can expect individuals to make better decisions than groups.
Groupthink and Groupshift
Two by-products of group decision making have the potential to affect a group’s ability to appraise alternatives objectively and arrive at high-quality solutions.
The first, called groupthink , relates to norms. It describes situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views. Groupthink is a disease that attacks many groups and can dramatically hinder their performance. The second phenomenon is groupshift , which describes the way group members tend to exaggerate the initial positions they hold when discussing a given set of alternatives and arriving at a solution. In some situations, caution dominates and there is a conservative shift, while in other situations groups tend toward a risky shift. Let’s look at each phenomenon in detail.
groupthink
A phenomenon in which the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.
groupshift
A change between a group’s decision and an individual decision that a member within the group would make; the shift can be toward either conservatism or greater risk but it generally is toward a more extreme version of the group’s original position.
Groupthink
Have you ever felt like speaking up in a meeting, a classroom, or an informal group but decided against it? One reason may have been shyness. Or you may have been a victim of groupthink, which occurs when the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses and the full expression of deviant, minority, or unpopular views. The individual’s mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment deteriorate as a result of group pressures.70
We have all seen the symptoms of groupthink:
Group members rationalize any resistance to the assumptions they’ve made. No matter how strongly the evidence may contradict their basic assumptions, they behave so as to reinforce them.
Members apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express doubts about any of the group’s shared views, or who question the validity of arguments supporting the alternative favored by the majority.
Members who have doubts or differing points of view seek to avoid deviating from what appears to be group consensus by keeping silent about misgivings and even minimizing to themselves the importance of their doubts.
There is an illusion of unanimity. If someone doesn’t speak, it’s assumed he or she is in full accord. Abstention becomes a “yes” vote.71
Groupthink appears closely aligned with the conclusions Solomon Asch drew in his experiments with a lone dissenter. Individuals who hold a position different from that of the dominant majority are under pressure to suppress, withhold, or modify their true feelings and beliefs. As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement—to be a positive part of the group—than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption is necessary to improve the effectiveness of the group’s decisions. Groups that are more focused on performance than on learning are especially likely to fall victim to groupthink and to suppress the opinions of those who do not agree with the majority.72
Does groupthink attack all groups? No. It seems to occur most often when there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive image of their group that they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to this positive image.73 So groupthink is not a dissenter-suppression mechanism as much as it’s a means for a group to protect its positive image. One study showed that those influenced by groupthink were more confident about their course of action early on.74 Groups that believe too strongly in the correctness of their course of action are more likely to suppress dissent and encourage conformity than are groups that are more skeptical about their course of action.
What can managers do to minimize groupthink?75 First, they can monitor group size. People grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases, and although there is no magic number that will eliminate groupthink, individuals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups get larger than about 10 members. Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of deliberation. In addition, managers should appoint one group member to play the role of devil’s advocate, overtly challenging the majority position and offering divergent perspectives. Still another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate active discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group or intensifying identity protection. Have group members delay discussion of possible gains so they can first talk about the dangers or risks inherent in a decision. Requiring members to initially focus on the negatives of an alternative makes the group less likely to stifle dissenting views and more likely to gain an objective evaluation.
Groupshift or Group Polarization
There are differences between group decisions and the individual decisions of group members.76 What appears to happen in groups is that the discussion leads members toward a more extreme view of the position they already held. Conservatives become more cautious, and more aggressive types take on more risk. The group discussion tends to exaggerate the initial position of the group.
We can view group polarization as a special case of groupthink. The group’s decision reflects the dominant decision-making norm that develops during discussion. Whether the shift in the group’s decision is toward greater caution or more risk depends on the dominant pre-discussion norm.
The shift toward polarization has generated several explanations.77 It’s been argued, for instance, that discussion makes the members more comfortable with each other and, thus, more willing to express extreme versions of their original positions. Another argument is that the group diffuses responsibility. Group decisions free any single member from accountability for the group’s final choice, so a more extreme position can be taken. It’s also likely that people take on extreme positions because they want to demonstrate how different they are from the outgroup.78 People on the fringes of political or social movements take on ever-more extreme positions just to prove they are really committed to the cause, whereas those who are more cautious tend to take moderate positions to demonstrate how reasonable they are.
So how should you use the findings on groupshift? Recognize that group decisions exaggerate the initial position of the individual members, that the shift has been shown more often to be toward greater risk, and that which way a group will shift is a function of the members’ pre-discussion inclinations.
We now turn to the techniques by which groups make decisions. These reduce some of the dysfunctional aspects of group decision making.
Group Decision-Making Techniques
Compare the effectiveness of interacting, brainstorming, and the nominal group technique.
The most common form of group decision making takes place in interacting groups . Members meet face-to-face and rely on both verbal and nonverbal interaction to communicate. But as our discussion of groupthink demonstrated, interacting groups often censor themselves and pressure individual members toward conformity of opinion. Brainstorming and the nominal group technique can reduce problems inherent in the traditional interacting group.
interacting groups
Typical groups in which members interact with each other face to face.
Brainstorming can overcome the pressures for conformity that dampen creativity79 by encouraging any and all alternatives while withholding criticism. In a typical brainstorming session, a half-dozen to a dozen people sit around a table. The group leader states the problem in a clear manner so all participants understand. Members then freewheel as many alternatives as they can in a given length of time. To encourage members to “think the unusual,” no criticism is allowed, even of the most bizarre suggestions, and all ideas are recorded for later discussion and analysis.
brainstorming
An idea-generation process that specifically encourages any and all alternatives while withholding any criticism of those alternatives.
Brainstorming may indeed generate ideas—but not in a very efficient manner. Research consistently shows individuals working alone generate more ideas than a group in a brainstorming session. One reason for this is “production blocking.” When people are generating ideas in a group, many are talking at once, which blocks the thought process and eventually impedes the sharing of ideas.80 The following two techniques go further than brainstorming by helping groups arrive at a preferred solution.81
The nominal group technique restricts discussion or interpersonal communication during the decision-making process, hence the term nominal. Group members are all physically present, as in a traditional committee meeting, but they operate independently. Specifically, a problem is presented and then the group takes the following steps:
nominal group technique
A group decision-making method in which individual members meet face to face to pool their judgments in a systematic but independent fashion.
Before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes down ideas on the problem.
After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. No discussion takes place until all ideas have been presented and recorded.
The group discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them.
Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.
The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits a group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking, as does an interacting group. Research generally shows nominal groups outperform brainstorming groups.82
Each of the group-decision techniques has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. The choice depends on what criteria you want to emphasize and the cost–benefit trade-off. As Exhibit 9-6 indicates, an interacting group is good for achieving commitment to a solution, brainstorming develops group cohesiveness, and the nominal group technique is an inexpensive means for generating a large number of ideas.