Will you be able to complete the full course?

6 Groups, Teams, and Decision Making Verdateo/iStock/Thinkstock Learning Objectives After reading this chapter and studying the materials, you should be able to:• Identify the v arious types of or ganizational gr oups and the stages of gr oup de velopment. • Ev aluate and manage the v arious pr operties of gr oups.

• Describe ho w t o w ork successfull y in t eam settings.

• Analyze ho w r ational and nonr ational decision-making methods ar e used t o r esolve or ganizational pr oblems.

• Describe other f actors that influence decision making.

2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Types of Groups and Stages of Development Section 6.1 6.1 Types of Groups and Stages of Development In t oday’s f ast-paced w orld of commer ce, one tr end has acceler ated: Man y or ganizational task s ar e incr easingly comple x, including decisions t o be made on behalf of the or ganization. One consequence of this tr end has been gr eater r eliance on collecti ves of emplo yees t o com - plete assignments and mak e decisions. The number and types of gr oups and t eams pr esent in the workplace has expanded, including some with international components.

In this chapt er, gr oups and t eams ar e e xamined with the goal of impr oving or ganizational perf ormance and y our abilit y t o manage them eff ectively. Some people mig ht belie ve that the t erms “t eam” and “gr oup” ar e the same. Similarities betw een t eams and gr oups ar e that the y both consist of a small set of people and that the y both seek t o achie ve goals. R ecent manage- ment and or ganizational beha vior lit erature, ho wever, suggests se veral diff erences betw een the two, as will be explored later in this chapter.

Decision-making pr ocesses within the cont ext of t eams and gr oups ar e also pr esented. Man- agers do not mak e decisions in a v acuum. That is, an y decision-mak er will be subject t o the opinions and v oices of others in his or her peer gr oup or in mor e f ormal gr oup decision- making settings.

The tac tics that assist in building quality gr oups and t eams and the e xperiences of gr oup members in volved in pr ojects funded b y the National Institut es of Health, as described in OB in A ction: Effective Medical Efforts, pr ovide se veral v aluable lessons f or t eam leaders and supervisors. OB in Action: Effective Medical Efforts “Team science” is the t erm that has been assigned t o w hat ha ve been described as “meg acollabora- tions” of scientists seeking t o sol ve major medical pr oblems. These gr oups, w hich ar e hig hly di verse, ma y span national boundaries and compan y affili - ations w hile speaking multiple languages. Despit e these challenge s, a number of such gr oups still suc - ceed and become hig hly functioning t eams. Ho w is this possible?

Michelle Bennett and Ho ward Gadlin, hig h-ranking administr ators in the National Institut es f or Mental Health hier archy, soug ht t o find the common char- act eristics of these collecti ves of indi viduals that w ere able t o succeed. Thr ough in-depth int erviews with members of both eff ective and unsuccessful eff orts, Bennett and Gadlin discovered several common themes (Paul, 2012).

First, the r esearchers point ed out the importance of bridging the ph ysical distance betw een gr oup members . Doing so can be accomplished either via videoconf erence or actual in-person (c ontinued) RamCreativ/iStock/Thinkstock Technological advances have made it possible for people all over the world to effectively unite under one cause.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Types of Groups and Stages of Development Section 6.1 Types of Groups In business or ganizations, emplo yees r outinely encount er gr oup acti vities. A gr oup consists of tw o or mor e people, int eracting, with a common purpose or goal (Schein, 1980). Gr oups can be f ormal or inf ormal. A formal group is established b y the or ganization and seek s t o achie ve company goals and objectives, such as a work group, committee, or project group. An informal gr oup, or a fr iendship group, emer ges without the endorsement of or ganiza- tional leaders and does not ha ve a designat ed structur e or w ork t oward or ganizational goals other than soc ialization and friendship (Shir ky, 2004). T able 6.1 pr esents some common f or- mal and informal groups present in the workplace. F ormal and inf ormal gr oups consist of f our types of members: the leader , opinion leaders, members in good standing, and the g atekeeper. The leader dir ects gr oup acti vities. F ormal leaders ar e assigned b y the or ganization. Inf ormal leaders emer ge based on the gr oup’s wishes.

Opinio n leaders ar e those indi viduals w ho ar e most closel y aligned with the leader . The name comes fr om their willingness t o e xpress gr oup v alues. Members in g ood standing ar e those inclu ded in the gr oup w ho do not shar e in an y leadership function. The g atekeeper det ermines w ho will and w ho will not be included in the gr oup. The g atekeeper will be a member , opinion leader , or leader . A t times the entir e gr oup serv es this r ole, kno wn as the g atekeeping function . OB in Action: Effective Medical Efforts (continued) meetings, the latt er being the best appr oach. The int eractions helped build trust betw een members and create a shared vision or purpose.

Second, langua ge is important . The members of the gr oup need t o clear ly understand the t erms being used so that disa greements do not emer ge o ver w hat a specific w ord or idea means.

Closel y r elated is the idea that all members should full y understand w hat their r oles and contributions were to be in the overall effort.

Third, a quality gr oup t ends t o f eature established or e xperienced r esearchers w orking with new comers. The blend of mor e tr aditional v oices with new ideas seems t o spur bett er out - comes, including becoming a functioning team.

Fourth, the w ork itself r equires dir ection. The gr oups that ar e able t o “modularize” pr ojects, with dis tinct assignments carrying identifiable mar king points, help k eep indi vidual members w orking on their own tasks rather than interfering with the efforts of others.

Naturally, these eff orts need a w ell-coordinated leadership structur e as w ell. The lesson t o be learned f or other f orms of business ma y v ery w ell be that e ven massi ve, comple x pr ojects can be broken down and made more manageable, which in turn makes success more possible.

Reflection and Application Questions 1. Which difference—country, company, or language—would be the most difficult problem t o overcome when building a team or group?

2. What role would “timing” play in the success levels of these groups of professionals?

3. Would the principles outlined here fit with every type of team or group, in every indus- try or setting? Why or why not?

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Types of Groups and Stages of Development Section 6.1 Table 6.1: Common types of formal and informal groups Common typesExamples Formal Work groups (command group)The sports desk at a newspaper The accounting department at a company Committees A workplace safety committee An employee benefits committee Project group (task force) A group assigned to write a report about an event A group assigned to redesign the interior of a store A group asked to develop a new product or service Informal Groups formed around an activity A group that meets to play cards during lunch A company softball team Groups formed due to shared sentiments A group of single mothers A prayer group Groups formed due to close physical associations P eople who work on the same floor People who work for a company at a remote location Stages of Group Development One commonl y cit ed appr oach used t o e xplain ho w gr oups e volve o ver time w as de veloped b y T uckman and Jensen (1977). The model suggests a seq uence in w hich indi viduals gr adually surr ender a se nse of indepe ndence in f avor of gr eater int erdependence. While the sequence ma y not be as pr ecise as the one depict ed in Figur e 6.1, it does pr ovide a gener al sense of ho w gr oups t end t o oper ate. Managers and leaders can assist gr oup functioning at e very stage of de velopment, which will help ensure the group achieves its goals.

Figure 6.1: Stages of group development As a group evolves, individuals gradually give up a sense of independence in favor of greater dependence and interdependence.

Source: Adapted from Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Or ganization Studies, 2 (4), 419–427.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Types of Groups and Stages of Development Section 6.1 Forming Initially, new members of a gr oup ar e lik ely t o distrust one another t o some e xtent and t o e xperience f eelings of uncertainty . T wo beha viors appear in the first stage of gr oup de velop- ment, kno wn as the f orming stage. First , gr oup members try out actions and acti vities t o see if other s in the gr oup deem them acceptable. The uncertainty associat ed with being assigned t o a new gr oup means some acts, opinions, or beha viors will be suitable w hile others will not . A t this stage, personal independence is high and interdependence is low.

Second, the gr oup leader (if one has been designat ed) or those seeking t o lead (if a leader has not been appoint ed) will tak e some first t entative actions, such as setting a meeting time or agenda. In the f orming stage, managers can mak e members f eel as comf ortable as pos - sible and establish basic gr ound rules t o ensur e the gr oup gels and can w ork t ogether w ell. The f orming stage ends w hen sufficient compliance suggests that members see themsel ves as part of the larger group.

Communication can pla y a k ey r ole in the f orming stage. Gr oups that meet mor e fr equently, leading t o communication and int eraction, ma y find it easier t o adapt t o the new cir cum- stances.

Man y times a successful leader mak es certain the gr oup can get t ogether oft en, with the goal of breaking down some of the early barriers to participation.

Storming Although members no w view themsel ves as part of som ething, the y sometimes disagr ee with the constr aints imposed b y the gr oup or simpl y t est t o see w hat the limits ar e. In the st orm- ing stage, the leader f aces r esistance as indi viduals seek t o disco ver their place in the gr oup’s structur e (Tuckman, 1965). An eff ective leader w orks t o r esolve conflicts and diff erences of opinion. If the leader cannot manage the gr oup successf ully, the possibility of subgr oups, member pr ocrastination, con - flicts betw een members, and open r ebellion emer ges. Gr oup survi val ma y be at risk. Con- v ersely, w hen the leader succeeds, indi viduals begin t o r elinquish some le vel of independence and become more dependent and interdependent on other members of the group.

Norming The close of the st orming stage occurs w hen a leader has become firml y established, oft en thr ough the eff orts of another member w ho challenges the gr oup t o come t ogether. Closer r elationships build betw een members, and discussions of po wer become less emotional and mor e matter of fact. Norms, w hich ar e implicit or e xplicit rules that go vern beha viors in the gr oup, begin t o emer ge. The norming stage is complet e w hen members shar e a common set of e xpectations about beha viors and contributions t o the gr oup. As sho wn in T able 6.2, norms appl y t o thr ee main ar eas in both f ormal and inf ormal gr oups. In f act, man y times norms o verlap betw een the tw o gr oups. Norms can be f ormally or inf ormally sanctioned, with appr oval or disappr oval b y gr oup members. Someo ne eng aged in a pleasant con versation with a supervisor , in an or ganization w here the nor m is t o see management as ad versaries, will pr obably be accused of being a “brownnoser,” or worse.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Types of Groups and Stages of Development Section 6.1 Table 6.2: Types of norms Area of behaviorExample of norm Effort (units of production) Time on the job/overtime Sales calls, sales totals, follow-ups with customers Work behaviors (use of language and levels of f ormality) Clothes worn Following or ignoring work rules or procedures Social behaviors (office friendships and romances) Fraternization between management and labor Norms t end t o de velop slo wly but then become difficult t o change. The y appl y t o the w ork- place mor e than t o off-w ork acti vities. The y also appl y t o beha viors r ather than pri vate f eel- ings and thoug hts. Members ma y “go along” with norms the y think ar e f oolish, althoug h hig h-status gr oup members ma y choose t o ignor e them. In gener al, norms summarize gr oup influence pr ocesses, including the rules f or joining and maintaining membership (Hackman, 2003).

In the norming stage, the leader can mak e sur e that unethical or count erproductive norms do not emerge.

Norms can pr ovide vital or ganizational functions w hen the y clarify the gr oup or or ganiza- tion’s k ey v alues and con vey a sense of identity . Enf orcing nor ms can assist an indi vidual with either meeting beha vioral e xpectations or a voiding making beha vioral mistak es. Some authors ar gue nor ms help the gr oup or the or ganization t o survi ve (F eldman, 1984), w hile ackno wl- edging that counterproductive norms may also emerge that hinder organizational success.

Performing When the gr oup r eaches the point at w hich the primary acti vities r evolve ar ound sol ving task pr oblems, the perf orming stage has opened. In the perf orming stage, the leader f acilitates gr oup acti vities t o ensur e the gr oup k eeps functioning. Open communication occurs betw een members as the y cooper ate with and support one another . An y disput es ar e handled quickl y and constructively (Mason & Griffin, 2005). In the perf orming stage, int erdependence r eaches its peak and independence has been sur - rendered as much as it will be. Member s ha ve lear ned t o depend on one another . Ongoing w ork gr oups and committ ees that r each the perf orming stage r emain ther e unless dr astic e vents int erfere. Pr oject t eams end w hen the task is complet e. Some inf ormal gr oups ha ve an end point , such as w hen a bo wling t eam’s season finishes. These gr oups then mo ve t o the final stage. Adjourning Groups that successfull y complet e task s oft en end with a cer emony or celebr ation. These tak e the f orm of parties, official stat ements of appr eciation b y compan y leaders, and e ven gr adua- tions and mock funer als. In the adjourning stage, a leader can summarize gr oup accomplish - ments and e xpress gr atitude f or good w ork. Indi viduals ma y r esume a str onger sense of inde- pendence as the group disbands.

Criticisms of the Stages of Group Development Approach In spit e of widespr ead usage of the fi ve-stage model, criticisms ha ve emer ged. Ther e is no clear-cut e vidence that a gr oup could not go thr ough the stages in an “all-at-once” f ashion or \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Group Properties Section 6.2 that some gr oups mig ht actuall y mo ve f orward thr ough the stages but then r egress back- w ards w hen conflicts arise. F urther, the cont ext within w hich the gr oup oper ates ma y str ongly influence ho w people int eract. As an e xample, a gr oup of thr ee pilots w ho ha ve ne ver flo wn t ogether quickl y becomes a cohesi ve f orce due t o str ong r eliance on tr aining and past pr ac- tices (Oldham & Fried, 1987).

6.2 Group Properties In addi tion t o norms, gr oups e xhibit other pr operties that influence their functioning and le vels of success. Thr ee of the most important pr operties ar e the r oles pla yed b y members as the y participat e, the size of the gr oup, and the le vel of gr oup cohesi veness. Gr oup leaders and compan y managers can seek to affect and manage these issues.

Roles Performed in Groups Groups without a degr ee of structur e e xperience a lac k of dir ection and e ven chaos. In the stages of st orming, norming, and perf orming, members begin t o enact r oles, w hich f acilitate gr oup functioning. In gr oups, members pla y r oles as the y ar e assigned or as the y e volve. The first ingr edient in the pr ocess is a person ’s per ception of ho w a r ole should be enact ed. F or e xample, some one w ho assigns a member t o the r ole of secr etary in a committ ee ma y belie ve that the person in that r ole r arely speak s in meetings and inst ead concentr ates on taking copious not es, because the indi vidual is quiet b y natur e but w ould be eff ective at pr eparing minut es and other group missives.

Factors That Shape Roles Five major f actors shape the natur e of a r ole: e xpectations, norms, perf ormance, e valuation, and sanctions. As illustr ated in Figur e 6.2, these f actors ar e int errelated and int eract with each other , including inputs pr ovided b y the person perf orming the r ole. The t erm used t o describe this int eractive pr ocess is that a r ole is socially constructed. Consequentl y, gr oup members learn about how they are expected to behave as other group members Comprehension Exercise 1. Deciding to exclude an unpopular employee from a committee is known as a. collusion.

b. sanctioning.

c. rejecting.

d. gatekeeping.

2. Implicit and explicit rules regarding behavior tend to emerge in which stage of group de velopment?

a. forming b. storming c. norming d. performing Answers: 1) d 2) c \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Group Properties Section 6.2 • project their expectations through subtle clues and overt statements. A group mem- ber often predicts role expectations through role perceptions.

• establish and communicate norms—the “oughts” and “shoulds” of roles—which serv e as inner guides as a person learns the role (Biddle & Thomas, 1966).

• socially negotiate the person’s role performance, or actual behavior, over time. Diff erent people play the same role, such as group leader, in different ways, often depending on the organizational and group contexts. The role performance by a det ective leading an investigation into a homicide will be vastly different from the leader of an advertising team trying to design a new commercial.

• provide feedback (approval and disapproval) on role performance through role e valuation. • impose sanctions, which are actions designed to maintain or change behaviors. Neg ative sanctions include criticism, caustic comments, ridicule, and exclusion from the group. Positive sanctions, such as including someone, praising the individual, or using the formal reward system, often lead to greater conformity to group norms and role expectations (Secord & Backman, 1964).

These f actors, as imposed b y other members of the gr oup, r esult in a kind of negotiation in w hich the r ole becomes sociall y construct ed. The person pla ying the r ole is the act or and other members of the gr oup ar e called ot hers (Sha w & Costanzo, 1982). Some r ole theorists r efer to these concepts as “position” (actor) and “counter-position” (others). Figure 6.2: Role-shaping factors Roles are influenced by many factors, including expectations, norms, performance, evaluation, and sanctions.

These factors, which are socially constructed, influence the way individuals play their roles within a group.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Group Properties Section 6.2 Group member r oles ar e pl ayed in the cont ext of the br oader job en vironment, and gr oup members can pla y diff erent r oles at w ork. Figur e 6.3 displa ys main f orces that shape a per- son ’s on-the-job r ole, in addition t o her or his specific gr oup r ole. Thr ough continual negotia - tion of these or ganizational f orces, as w ell as the influence of those in an indi vidual’s immedi- at e group, the role will be enacted and performed.

Figure 6.3: Roles at work At work, some of the factors that influence an individual’s on-the-job role include the job itself, int eractions with coworkers, personal goals, the relationship with a leader, and the organization’s structur e.

Figure 6.3 suggests that part of a person ’s r ole will be det ermined b y the job t o w hich the indi- vidual has been assigned. The r ole of “police officer” is quit e diff erent than the r ole of “ad ver- tising cr eative.” The r ole will be shaped, in part b y the job description an applicant sees w hen seeking t o obtain the job and via the job specification, w hich lists eligibility r equirements and qualifications.

The goal of these tw o documents is t o mak e certain a fit e xists betw een the emplo yee and the job itself.

Next, the goals a person sets within the cont ext of a job will shape the r ole. A salesperson w ho sets goals t o “find new cust omers” will be diff erent than one w ho seek s t o “k eep our curr ent cust omers happ y.” Goal-setting pr ograms such as management b y objecti ves (MBO) pr ovide \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Group Properties Section 6.2 role cla rity, because the indi vidual has a good sense of the task s that the or ganization deems t o be valuable. An emplo yee’s supervisor has a major impact on the natur e of the r ole. A dir ective and authoritarian supervisor elicits beha viors that will diff er fr om a participati ve leader . Thr ough int eractions with a supervis or, the emplo yee should learn w hat is e xpected and the types of beha viors, actions, and language to avoid on the job.

Finally, the or ganization’s structur e partiall y dictat es the natur e of the r ole. A centr alized and mechanistic structur e dictat es the lo wer-ranking emplo yees ar e “or der f ollowers.” A mor e or ganic and decentr alized structur e empo wers indi viduals t o mak e decisions and pr ovide inputs to those of higher rank.

Jobs, goals, leadership, and structur e pr ovide v essels thr ough w hich r ole e xpectations, norms, e valuation, perf ormance and sanctions will be deli vered. These messages help the indi vidual understand ho w t o cope with or ganizational constr aints and the manner in w hich the job should be performed. Factors That Disrupt Role Performance Three major f orces can disr upt eff ec- tive r ole perf ormance: r ole conflict , r ole ambiguity , and r ole o verload. R ole conflict occurs w hen an indi- vidual confr onts diff ering r ole e xpec- tations.

These can be the r esult of diff ering task instructions or due t o other causes, such as being neg atively sanctioned f or beha vior that a person thoug ht was part of the role.

An intr a-role (within the r ole) co n- flict tak es pla ce w hen an emplo yee f aces tw o e xpectations that ar e not in agr eement. A r estaurant se rver w ho is t old t o gi ve personal, att entive service that mak es patr ons f eel comf ortable ma y also be encour aged t o “turn the table o ver” or get people t o lea ve as quickl y as possible, in or der t o accommodat e more guests.

Achieving both objectives will be extremely difficult. An int er-role conflict tak es place w hen a r ole or task perf ormed on the job clashes with per- sonal f eelings or v alues.

The r ole of att entive par ent ma y conflict with the r ole of r eliable emplo yee, especiall y w hen being r eliable r equires tr avel, w orking at nig ht, or long hours a way fr om f amily (P eterson et al., 1995). Someone w ho belie ves a task is unethical but r equired b y management experiences an inter-role conflict.

A manager can help reduce role conflict in a few ways:

• Pr ovide clear task instructions so the employee better understands expectations. Davis De Lossy/Photodisc/Thinkstock Factors that are disruptive to role performance can be broken down into three types: conflict, ambiguity, and overload.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Group Properties Section 6.2 • Make sure employees only answer to one leader (group and departmental) so they do not receive conflicting messages. • F oster a socially and morally acceptable climate so the employee encounters less personal conflict with job requirements.

Role ambiguity r esults fr om lack of clarity about a r ole. An emplo yee w ho complains, “I don ’t kno w w hat it is I’m supposed t o be doing, ” e xpresses r ole ambiguity . It appears w hen a per- son firs t begins a position or joins a new or ganization. R ole ambiguity ma y also mat erial- ize f ollowing dr amatic changes in the gr oup or in a compan y, such as w hen do wnsizing or r estructuring tak es place. The indi vidual will be unclear about new job r esponsibilities. R ole ambiguity has been r elated t o both job dissatisf action and le vels of personal str ess. It can be r educed thr ough managerial eff orts t o incr ease r ole clarity, such as mor e specific job instruc - tions, f eedback, and coaching. This could also include cr eating goal-setting pr ograms. When hiring, manag ers should f ollow a car eful selection pr ocess, so that the person kno ws w hy she or he is being hired, and encourage quality leader–member relationships.

Role overload comes fr om being ask ed t o do t oo much within a r ole. The person ma y ha ve been mismat ched in the fir st place and w as unpr epared t o tackle a position or occupation. Others e xperience o verload w hen managers place incr easing demands on them without allo- cating sufficie nt time t o accomplish the w ork. R ole o verload has been link ed t o job dissatis- f action, str ess-related pr oblems, and conflicts with others. Managers should seek t o assist new or less experienced employees and help during “crunch time” as needed. Group Size One v ariable a manager can car efully construct w hen seeking t o optimize perf ormance is the size of the gr oup. The goal of the gr oup should be the primary det erminant of its size. Thr ee basic objectives associated with a group are • producing an item/completing a project • solving problems • collecting information/input When pr oducing an it em or completing a pr oject r epresents the primary goal, an int eresting phenomenon occurs. As gr oups incr ease in size, pr oductivity rises as w ell, but at a diminish- ing r ate. In other w ords, adding a se venth member t o a gr oup will incr ease the pr oductivity of that gr oup, but the incr ease will not be one-se venth mor e, but inst ead something less than that amount . R esearchers suggest that as the size of the gr oup incr eases, the amount of eff ort contribut ed per member de clines (Shepper d, 1993). A t times, or ganizational dictat es such as budget constr aints or hig her-level management pr eferences constr ain the original size of the gr oup in t erms of the number of members. Lat er, the same dictat es ma y also limit the leader’s ability to add members.

In some instances, e xtreme declines in indi vidual eff ort r esult fr om the addition of new gr oup members.

S ocial loafing occurs w hen gr oup members gi ve less eff ort t o a gr oup than the y w ould if w orking indi vidually. A t the e xtreme, social loafing in volves a member taking a fr ee ride and contributing near ly nothing. Social norms, of ten not ed b y gr oup members, mig ht off er a method t o induce a social loaf er t o at least pr ovide some eff ort (Murph y, W ayne, Liden, & Er dogan, 2003). When a social loaf er’s peers stat e the indi viduals should “carry their o wn \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Group Properties Section 6.2 weight” or “do their f air shar e,” and mak e stat ements such as “w e ar e all e xpected t o be in volved (or chip in), and that’s onl y rig ht,” the implied norm becomes that social loafing is unacceptable.

Pr oblem sol ving ma y also be influenced b y the size of the gr oup. A dditional members past a certain number (normall y about se ven), ma y mak e the pr ocesses mor e comple x. A dditional inputs and points of view ma y lead t o a gr eater pot ential f or conflict on the one hand and compr omise r ather than the best possible choice on the other . A t the same time, a small gr oup consisting of thr ee or f our members ma y be disrupt ed b y personality pr oblems, w herein tw o persons at odds may slow down the process and not reach an ideal solution.

Group size also aff ects collecting inf ormation and input . Sufficient size leads t o a gr eater pr ob- ability that all necessary input has been collect ed. A small gr oup (2 or 3 members) ma y suff er fr om “t unnel vision, ” b y f ailing t o e xamine all possible points of view or sour ces of quality inf ormation. A lar ge gr oup ma y be subject t o inf ormation o verload, w here t oo man y minut e points are made and decision-making or problem-solving processes break down as a result.

Consequently, managers oft en compose task gr oups of fi ve t o se ven members. F ewer than fi ve r educes pr oductivity due t o the small size of the gr oup. Se ven will be close t o the point at w hich dimin ishing r eturns per new member become mor e noticeable. Also, some r esearch suggests that gr oups with odd numbers of members (fi ve or se ven) ha ve bett er chances of success (Yetton & Bottger, 1983).

Group Cohesiveness The degr ee of goal commitment , conf ormity, cooper ation, and gr oup contr ol o ver members indicat es the le vel of gr oup cohesiveness.

F urther, the degr ee of cohesion in a gr oup aff ects pr oductivity and performance, as depicted in Figure 6.4.

Figure 6.4: Group cohesiveness The right balance of cohesion within a group can lead to success. Too little cohesion may result in a lack of cooperation, whereas too much cohesion may lead to setting norms that reduce output or decr ease levels of effort.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Group Properties Section 6.2 As sho wn, a gr oup with t oo little cohesion oft en suff ers fr om a lack of pr oductivity. The pr ob- lems associat ed with lo w cohesion f ollow the concepts f ound in its definition. Ther e will be goal disagr eement r ather than agr eement. Members do not conf orm t o an y pot ential gr oup norms.

They fail to cooperate, and group sanctions do not affect them.

In the middle of Figur e 6.4, gr oups with desir able le vels of cohesion t end t o enjo y the hig hest le vels of success. The benefits of cohesive groups include:

• productivity • members helping those experiencing problems • extra effort given during a crisis • members working without supervision • a positive social atmosphere emerging Clearly, mana gers ha ve v ested int erests in de veloping and maintaining cohesi ve gr oups (Litt erer, 1973; Seashore, 1954).

Figure 6.4 also suggests a zone in w hich the le vel of cohesion has gr own t o the point that pr oblems begin t o emer ge. Ov erly cohesi ve gr oups ar e mor e lik ely t o set norms that r educe output or lo wer le vels of ef fort. Comments such as “tak e it eas y” or “ Are y ou trying t o be a br ownnoser?” imply the norm that too much effort is unacceptable to the group.

Overly cohesi ve gr oups ma y also be inclined t o view other gr oups as ri vals and cr eate unnec - essary conflicts. A t times, the f ormal leader in the gr oup becomes unable t o function due t o the influence of the informal leader. The most substantial pr oblem with o verly cohesi ve gr oups, ho wever, is labeled gr oupthink. Gr oupthink r esults w hen gr oup pr essures f or conf ormity become so int ense that the gr oup a voids unusua l, minority, or unpopular views. A t the e xtreme, gr oupthink becomes a process b y w hich the gr oup de velops a sense of in vulnerability, belie ving it can function without out - side influence or sanction. The gr oup self-censors inf ormation and f ails t o perf orm eff ectively with or ganizational confines ( Janis, 1991). This includes f ailing t o find the best solution w hile encour aging the conf ormity of opinion, oft en ar ound the wr ong decision. The FBI’s in vestiga- tion of P enn Stat e Uni versity’s athletic pr ogram and uni versity leadership t eam ma y serv e as an e xample. A Time mag azine article (Cohen and DeBenedet , 2012) ar gues that the decisions made in the att empt t o pr otect the uni versity’s r eputation b y hiding the se xually-predatory conduct of Co ach Jerry Sandusky can be attribut ed t o such gr oupthink pr ocesses. The deci- sion mak ers w ere f ar r emoved fr om e xternal and pot entially mor e objecti ve and r ational opinions about how to handle the situation in an ethical and legal fashion.

Group cohesi veness and pr oductivity or perf ormance will be aff ected b y a series of int er- nal f actors. T able 6.3 summarizes cir cumstances in w hich these f actors influence the le vel of cohesion.

Gr oup size, as not ed, influences both cohesion and pr oductivity. Opportunities t o int eract come fr om pr oximity as w ell as scheduled f ormal and inf ormal g atherings. Homoge- neity has become f ar less common in most places of w ork. One method used t o build a sense of het erogeneity is t o cr eate o verarching super ordinate goals, or objecti ves t o w hich all mem - bers agr ee t o help bond the gr oup. F or e xample, members of a w orkplace saf ety committ ee, w hile complet ely di verse in t erms of age, r ace, gender , and occupational type, can agr ee t o the \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Group Properties Section 6.2 goals of k eeping w orkers saf e and lo wering health insur ance costs in the pr ocess. Doing so pr ovides commonality in the presence of heterogeneity.

Group status can mak e gr oup membership mor e or less desir able. An outside thr eat can be r eal or one suggest ed b y management as a pot ential pr oblem. Int erdependence and inde- pendence r esult fr om norm ing pr ocesses. Membership stability is link ed t o opportunities t o int eract and bond. Eff ective leaders understand indi vidual member needs; ineff ective ones dri ve wedges between members (Homans, 1950).

Table 6.3: Factors affecting cohesiveness levels Increase cohesiveness Decrease cohesiveness Proper size (4–7 members) Too many members Opportunities to interact Isolation Similarities (homogeneity) between members Dissimilar members High status within organization Low public image of group Presence of outside threat Placid environment Interdependence among members Opportunity to join other groups Attractive (to members) group goalsUnsatisfactory goals or goal disagreements Stable membership High turnover Effective leader Ineffective leader Group Outliers and Noncompliance In man y gr oups, one indi vidual w ho r equires att ention will be the outlier . This person dis- agr ees with or wishes t o a void compliance with norms. The outlier will oft en be a mor e int el- ligent member of the group. Noncompliance involves the activities shown in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4: Noncompliance with group norms ActivityExamples Rebellion (ignores the norm, deliberately violat es the norm) Wears jeans in violation of dress code, uses foul language in pr ofessional setting, overproduces relative to others in the gr oup (rate buster, speed king) Creative individualism (follows norms yet is innovative) Feigns indifference in required meeting, goes through the motions, mumbles under breath while following orders or dir ections, overdoes courtesy Conformity (complies grudgingly, e xpresses disillusionment in other, safe en vironments) Complains on break, at home, or during drive home The leadership r ole in an y gr oup in volves guiding a gr oup outlier in such a manner that the indi vidual does not neg atively influence the other members (Schein, 1968). The leader can \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Teams Section 6.3 engage in a v ariety of tactics t o r educe the influence, such as b y speaking pri vately with the outlier first about his or her beha vior; talking with other gr oup members and asking f or their r eactions t o out burst and other noncompliance acti vities; w orking t o ha ve the indi vidual r eassigned, or encour aging peer pr essure t o let the indi vidual kno w others in the gr oup do not app rove of the person ’s actions and comments. P art of successful leadership in volves the ability t o cr eatively find w ays t o r each an outlier and bring the person in line or t o r educe or eliminat e any negative impact created by the individual.

6.3 Teams Teams become distinct fr om gr oups w hen s ynergies, or incr eased le vels of perf ormance, emer ge fr om gr eater int erdependence and shar ed eff ort (Katzenbach & Smith, 1999; Rico, Sanchez -Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson, 2008). Characteristics of teams include the following:

• sharing leadership responsi- bilities among members • shifting from individual r esponsibility to individual plus collective responsibility • evaluating success based on t eam outcomes rather than indi vidual outcomes • improved collective problem sol ving Trust constitut es an additional k ey component of a t eam. Eff ective t eams go be yond int eraction and mo ve t o the point of collaboration. Comprehension Exercise 1. Which is not a role-shaping activity associated with the actor and other?

a. expectations b. norms c. sanctions d. groupthink 2. Which term describes a group that is “tight-knit” and shares common objectives?

a. agreement b. involvement c. interaction d. cohesiveness Answers: 1) d 2) d Ondine32/iStock/Thinkstock A team is made up of several individuals who, ideally, function as one.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Teams Section 6.3 At times, gr oups and t eams shar e certain char acteristics. The y both pr ovide v enues f or social - ization and assist in communication and decision-making pr ocesses. One perspecti ve sug - gests that a t eam is a gr oup that has successfull y negotiat ed the f orming, st orming, and norm- ing aspects of de velopment and has mo ved t o the perf orming stage. A t the same time, it is clear that man y collecti ves of emplo yees ( groups) ar e f ormed that do not r each such a le vel of collabor ation and coor dination. Bef ore anal yzing additio nal f actors r elated t o t eam success or f ailure, the first step is to understand the types of teams utilized in organizations. Types of Teams Four of the most common types of teams are:

• self-managed work teams • problem-solving teams • cross-functional teams • virtual teams Each presents potential benefits and challenges to the overall organization.

Self-Managed Work Teams Many or ganizations belie ve that certain types of w ork can be successfull y dir ected b y emplo y- ees r ather than supervisors . A self-managed w ork team consists of a gr oup of emplo yees w ho ar e assigned managerial r esponsibilities combined with w ork task s. The managerial acti vities perf ormed b y members of self-managed w ork t eams include planning acti vities, scheduling w ork, assigning task s t o indi vidual t eam members, o verseeing the pace of w ork, making on-the-spot decisions, and f acilitating some elements of the contr ol function. In some instances self-managed teams conduct internal performance evaluations.

Research r esults r egarding the eff ectiveness of self-managed t eams ha ve been mix ed. Some e vidence suggests t eam members r eport hig her le vels of job satisf action (Cor dery, Mueller , & Smith, 1991; V an Mier lo, R utte, K ompier, & Door ewaard, 2005). In contr ast, supervisors w ho w ould lose authority in self-management t eam settings w ere logicall y inclined t o r esist such a change, viewing the mo ve as a thr eat t o job security . Also, some self-managed t eams did not function well during periods of downsizing (Zemke, 1993).

Self-managed w ork t eams w ould appear t o ha ve bett er chances f or success w hen emplo y- ees ar e w ell tr ained and perf orm mor e sophisticat ed jobs. The or ganization must be able t o support the pr ogram with r ewards f or t eam perf ormance. Firms e xhibiting centr alization or str ong patt erns of managerial contr ol at t op le vels ar e not the best candidat es f or such pr ograms.

Problem-Solving Teams When members of an or ganization ar e placed int o gr oups t o e xamine specific or ganizational pr oblems or pr ocesses, a pr oblem-solving team ma y emer ge. T eamwork occurs w hen mem - bers ar e willin g t o shar e inf ormation, cooper ate, and see k t o achie ve t eam as w ell as indi vidual \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Teams Section 6.3 objectives. Pr oblem-solving t eams can at times r esemble quality cir cles and at other times r esemble pr oject t eams. Such t eams r emain popular v ehicles f or dealing with v arious or gani- zational issues.

Cross-Functional Teams A cr oss-functional team consists of emplo yees fr om diff erent ar eas in the compan y that ar e br ought t ogether f or a specific purpose. Combining e xperts t o w ork on an e xciting pr ob- lem, task, or issue oft en lea ds t o eff ective cr oss-functional t eams. T eams can be assigned t o de velop a new product, such as has been the norm at Apple Inc.

Committees that endur e and succeed tak e on char acteristics of cr oss-functional t eams. Such committ ees r each the perf orming stage of gr oup de velopment. As a r esult, members oft en r emain with the committee over longer periods of time.

Cross-functional t eams at times r esemble task f orces (se e T able 6.1). Man y aut omobile manu- f acturers ha ve emplo yed task f orces t o coor dinate comple x pr ojects. Har ley-Davidson r elies on collecti ves of indi viduals fr om v arious departments t o help manage pr oduct lines, including the des ign of the pr oduct, manuf acturing, and e ven contacts with suppliers (Brunelli, 1999). The compan y has e xpanded the r oles of t eams t o impr ove saf ety on the job, as described in the OB in Action feature box in Section 6.5.

Virtual Teams Today’s t echnologies allo w f or members of gr oups t o meet in cy berspace r ather than in ph ysi- cal space. V irtual teams emplo y Int ernet and digital t echnologies t o achie ve common goals, such as collab orating, sharing inf ormation, sol ving pr oblems, and scheduling acti vities. Vir- tual teams are formed for short-term projects as well as long-range, ongoing issues.

Virtual t eams enjo y the ad vantages of r educing tr avel costs and allo wing people fr om r emote locations t o participat e. The y ar e fle xible in the sense that meetings can be arr anged f airly quickl y, espec ially w hen compar ed t o meetings that r equire tr avel t o a distant place. V olvo and Lockheed Martin ha ve both made eff ective use of the ad vantages of these types of t eams (Ant e, 2003; Cr ock, 2003; Naug hton, 2003). Man y curr ent e xamples e xist, including the suc - cess of Seamless Medical S ystems, w hich pr ovides a mobile, modular , digital platf orm t o be used b y ph ysicians and clinical staff emplo yees along with link ages t o be used b y patients as part of their care and treatment. (Ferrazi, 2014).

An ar gument can be made that a virtual t eam w ould be bett er named a “virtual gr oup.” The r easoning connect ed t o this int erpretation w ould be that virtual collabor ations do not tak e on the elements of trust and member int erdependence that ar e part of the t eam concept . Thr ee limitations of virtual t eams ha ve been described, tw o of w hich r educe a gr oup’s ability t o tak e on team-like characteristics. First , in virtual meetings, par averbal cues such as v oice t one and inflection, and non verbal cues lik e e ye contact , distance, gestur es, and f acial e xpression, cannot as easil y be tr ansmit- ted.

This limits the richness of communications between team members. \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Teams Section 6.3 Second, socialization will be hig hly r educed. As virtual meetings conclude and members go on t o other work, they cannot remain “in the room” to discuss issues and fraternize. The thir d pr oblem associat ed with virtual t eams is that members will most lik ely meet at diff ering times, depending on location. A meeting that begins at 4:00 p.m. in San Diego tak es place at 7:00 p.m. in New Y ork, a time w hen most people ha ve left the office. Int ernational virtual meetings can become even more problematic.

Cross-cultural diff erences pot entially influence the natu re of a virtual t eam’s functioning. P at- terns of communication including dir ectness v ersus mor e car efully-couched suggestions and opinions, the r ole of def erence t o members of the opposit e se x as w ell as t o those in manage- rial positions, plus other cultur al norms and f eatures can limit trust and int erdependence. Incr eased int eractions and pr oactive ackno wledgement of these pot ential nuances help r esolve any potential problems that emerge from cultural differences.

In summary , the f our types of t eams ar e pr evalent in man y of t oday’s companies. P art of the r eason is that these t eams ar e essentiall y mor e hig hly e volved gr oups in the perf orming stage. Managerial eff orts designed to impr ove functioning can assist self-managed t eams, pr oblem- solving gr oups that become t eams, cr oss-functional t eams f ollowing the same path, and vir- tual teams. Effective Teams As with qualit y gr oups, eff ective t eams ha ve certain r equisites. When mo ving be yond gr oup composi- tion t oward mor e cohesi ve t eams, f our elements deserv e consider ation: the composition of the t eam, the design of the w ork, cont extual f actors, and pr o- cess variables.

Team Composition Managers can pla y important r oles in designing t eams with the best chances f or success. Doing so in volves making sur e the ri ght mix of personalities and skill sets ar e assigned t o pr ojects. Also, those chosen should ha ve indicat ed an int erest in being included in the gr oup. Clear instructions allo w members t o fit in and mo ve past st orming and norm- ing issues. In the same manner as a gr oup, a t eam should consis t of the most appr opriate number of members.

In the case of cohesion, one f actor that can w ork ag ainst a t eam’s w ell-being occurs w hen a si ngle member of a minor ity has been placed on a t eam. The indi vidual ma y f eel ostr acized, e ven in gr oups w here acceptance is hig h; the lone status of a sing le person fr om a diff erent gr oup ma y cause Ancika/iStock/Thinkstock Managers must make strategic decisions when it comes to composing a team.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Teams Section 6.3 discomfort and stilt ed con versation among members. In gener al, member selection can mak e or br eak a t eam (Millik en & Martins, 1996). Manageme nt should be a ware of cr eating situa - tions in w hich onl y one pers on with a major diff erence such as age, gender , or ethnicity is part of a group, instead looking to add additional members to create greater diversity.

Work Design The logical connection betw een a t eam and a pr oject is comple xity. Simple task s ar e bett er handled b y sing le indi viduals. Consequentl y, w ork design in a t eam setting in volves a mor e complicat ed assignment . Members of the t eam should belie ve the y ha ve sufficient authority and aut onomy t o finalize w ork in the best manner possible. When a pr oject or task has an end point , it possesses task identity , w hich w as not ed as a moti vational f actor in Chapt er 5. F urther, the int eractions betw een members, w hen coupled with an out come that helps oth - ers in the or ganization, gener ate f eelings of task signif icance, another moti vational f orce. In essence, the design of the w ork should be f ocused on int eresting, challenging, and important or ganizational chores (Kirkman & Rosen, 2000).

Contextual Variables Effective t eams oper ate in in viting cont exts. T rust r epresents both a cause and an eff ect in t eam success. A trusting en vironment encour ages coope ration and shar ed eff ort. Cooper ation and shar ed eff ort build trust f or the futur e. Other cont extual variables that contribut e t o suc - cess include adequate resources, quality leadership, and the organizational reward system.

Resources ar e oft en necessar y t o assist t eam acti vities. Members w ho belie ve the y ha ve access t o needed funds and t echnological support ar e mor e lik ely t o bu y in and support the t eam (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000).

Quality leadership occurs in tw o w ays. The first , and mor e appar ent, is f ound in the eff orts of a leader dedicat ed t o making sur e the gr oup functions smoothl y. Eff ective leaders in this v ein se t challe nging e xpectations and oper ate in a posi tive f ashion (Geor ge & Bett enhausen, 1990).

The se cond tak es pl ace w hen the gr oup leads itself b y setting schedules, r esolving conflicts, making decisions, and coor dinating acti vities, much in the manner of self-managed t eams.

The or ganizational reward system consists of the perf ormance e valuation pr ogram and the deli very of r ewards. Gr oup-based incenti ves, such as bonuses f or completing task s, contrib - ute t o mor e eff ective t eams. When r ewards f or perf ormance do not e xist, the pot ential f or t eam dissent and demise rises.

Process Variables The final component in a successful t eam eff ort in volves the gr oup’s pr ocess, or the manner in w hich the t eam oper ates. F our elements combine t o ensur e a mor e efficient oper ational pr o- cess.

T eams with a common purpose among members , confidence, specific goals, and man - aged conflict ar e mor e lik ely t o e xperience positi ve out comes. A common purpose e volves fr om f actors such as gr oup cohesi veness and w ell-developed norms. T eam confidence, or \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Teams Section 6.3 team ef ficacy, r esults fr om successful endea vors. A t eam can build on pr evious vict ories much in the same w ay as a sports t eam builds momentum during a g ame and during a season. Spe - cific goals clarify member r oles. Difficult goals ar e asso ciated with hig her le vels of eff ort and perf ormance.

Managing conflict necessitat es car eful managerial action. On one hand, conflict is ine vitable and can r educe pr oblems such as o verly cohesi ve gr oups and gr oupthink. On the other , t oo much conflict can become a major distr action. Conflict management and r esolution r eceives significant attention in Chapter 7.

Teams ar e most lik ely t o be eff ective w hen all f our f eatures combine t o cr eate the best en vi- ronment.

A pr oblem in an y one of the f our can disrupt gr oup functioning. Managers should see the big picture when seeking to generate team effectiveness.

Being a Team Player What will be y our r ole in the w orkplace? Will y ou be the staunch indi vidualist w ho goes his or her o wn w ay? Or will co workers and t op management complement y our ability t o get things done in t eams and gr oups? A case can be made that a mor e enriching and successful car eer a waits quality team players.

Opinions v ary r egarding the natur e of an eff ective t eam pla yer. Lists of eff ective member char- act eristics typicall y r ange fr om 10 t o 17 it ems. Some of the mor e common t erms used t o describe quality team members include the following:

• adaptable • collabor ative • committed • communicative • competent • dependable • enthusiastic • intentional • mission conscious • prepared • relational • self-improving • selfless • solution oriented • tenacious Team pla yers e xhibit quality list ening skills, ar e cooper ative r ather than competiti ve, r emain optimistic and happ y, ar e adaptable t o change, and ar e good negotiat ors. F urther, a success- ful t eam member is someone w ho has e xcellent t echnical and pr ofessional compet ence, good int erpersonal skills, and a sharing, gi ving t endency; r espects authority; car es f or the cus - tomer; is a self-r eliant, happ y person w ho w elcomes f eedback; has a finger on the pulse of the t eam; is dependable; and demonstrates integrity, honesty, and trust.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Teams Section 6.3 Numerous ide as about the natur e of an eff ective t eam pla yer e xist. This pr ovides each person with a series of options r egarding w ays t o eng age in a gr oup and become an eff ective member .

Turning Individuals into Team Players When stud ying dimensions of national cultur e, one concept that r eceives substantial att ention is the degr ee of indi vidualism v ersus collecti vism pr esent. An indi vidualistic cultur e e xists w hen most people in a r egion ar e self-ori - ented mor e than or iented t oward an y gr oup, t eam, or or ganization. C ollec- tivist cultur es r epresent the opposit e t endency. The Unit ed Stat es and other W estern cultur es t end t o e xhibit indi - vidualistic t endencies. C onsequently, building and f acilitating t eamwork will be mor e challenging ther e than in other societies. The lik elihood that emplo yees will be t eam pla yers can be incr eased thr ough thr ee manage - rial acti vities: r ecruiting and selec - tion, coaching, and reward systems.

When r ecruiting, selection crit eria mak e it possible t o encour age appli - cations b y indi viduals int erested in collabor ation. Dur ing int erviews, managers can disco ver those w ho ha ve participat ed in t eam eff orts as part of their educa - tion.

F or e xample, applicants with connections t o sports t eams, fr aternities or sor orities, and int erest clubs such as Enactus ha ve alr eady demonstr ated the willingness t o eng age in a larger group.

Coaching in volves managers and leaders pr oviding positi ve e xamples. Se veral consulting companies off er t eamwork building pr ograms designed t o help emplo yees become bett er t eam members. P art of this eff ort will be t o r eorient the indi vidual t o collecti ve goals and a common effort designed to reach those goals.

Reward s ystems can be alt ered or modified t o incorpor ate perf ormance objecti ves r elated t o cooper ation and collabor ation, w hich will then r eward indi viduals w ho impr ove or e xhibit these char acteristics. Then, the s ystem can be changed t o add gr oup r ewards and bonuses f or t eam perf ormance. Hallmar k Car ds, Inc., and a f ormer subsidiary of Blue Cr oss, T rigon, ha ve successfull y adapt ed r eward s ystems t o include t eam incenti ves (including financial incen - tives) in a manner that pr ovides a model f or other companies (Geber , 1995). T ony Hsieh, f ounder of Zappos, describe s his compan y’s success using r eward s ystems in his book De liver- ing Happiness (2013). In summary , t eams become distinct fr om gr oups w hen s ynergies emer ge fr om gr eater int er- dependence and shar ed eff ort. Self-managed w ork t eams, pr oblem-solving t eams, cr oss- functional t eams and virtual t eams ar e commonl y used b y business or ganizations. Eff ective management of these and other t eams can become an int egral part of or ganizational success. OgnjenO/iStock/Thinkstock For an individualist culture like the one present in the United States, teamwork, in many cases, must be actively promoted.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Decision-Making Models Section 6.4 6.4 Decision-Making Models What is the most important managerial acti vity? Some of y ou mig ht ans wer, “Pr oviding lead - ership.” Others ma y r eply, “Moti vating emplo yees.” Both ar e quality ans wers. A thir d option, ho wever, w ould be the r esponse, “Making decisions. ” In t oday’s v olatile w ork en vironment managers ar e constantl y challenged t o mak e decisions. Ther efore, the stud y of decision mak- ing constitutes a key element in understanding how to effectively manage an organization.

Decisions ar e not usuall y made b y one person, standing alone. Man y times the indi vidual seek s the coun - sel of v arious gr oups and t eam mem - bers, including sets of fri ends and allies within the or ganization or via mor e f ormal gr oup and or ganiza- tional processes.

At times, deci sions do not r equire a gr eat deal of consider ation. A p ro- grammed decision will be made w hen the natur e of the pr oblem is w ell underst ood, the cho ices ar e clear , and the r esults can be pr e- dicted with hig h le vels of confidence. R eordering r aw mat erials, r enewing emplo yment contr acts, and f ollowing compan y pr ocedures ar e e xamples of pr ogrammed decisions. A nonpr ogrammed decision occurs w hen the situation is unique and no pr eviously established courses of action e xist. Such decisions r equire mor e time and e valuation. In this section, decision-making models as w ell as methods used t o det ermine nonpr ogrammed decisions are identified. Comprehension Exercise 1. Teams with a common purpose among members, confidence, specific goals, and man- aged conflict exhibit which aspect of team development?

a. team composition b. work design c. contextual factors d. process variables 2. Resources, leadership, and the or ganizational r eward system are part of w hich element?

a. t eam composition b. work design c. contextual variables d. process variables Answers: 1) d 2) c Connel_Design/iStock/Thinkstock There are various decision-making models covering many potential circumstances. Some decisions require observance of established processes, while others require more extensive evaluation.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Decision-Making Models Section 6.4 A Rational Decision-Making Model When or ganizational leaders seek t o r esolve a pr oblem that has new , unchart ed dimensions, the most tr aditional method is t o f ollow the st eps of a r ational model. The appr oach allo ws f or a r easoned thoug ht pr ocess at e very point . The r ational decision-making model typicall y consists of six steps:

1. State the problem or opportunity.

2. Identify company limitations.

3. Generate alternatives.

4. Evaluate alternatives.

5. Choose a solution.

6. Develop a plan of implementation.

State the Problem or Opportunity It ma y be t empting t o think that decision making is onl y about sol ving pr oblems. In truth, or ganizational managers oft en use decision making t o assess an opportunity . T able 6.5 lists some common problems and opportunities.

Table 6.5: Problems and opportunities Problems Opportunities Lost market share Available new technology Low profits/losses Economic upswing Employee morale issues New social trend Unethical activities Change in the marketplace When identify ing a pr oblem or opportunity , tw o elements ar e important . First , mak e certain that the cause of the pr oblem has been identified and not just the s ymptoms of the pr oblem. F or e xample, lost mar ket sh are could be due t o an inno vation b y the competition or declining pr oduct quality b y the firm losing shar e. Emplo yee mor ale issues include s ymptoms such as absent eeism, tar diness, turno ver, and grie vances. The cause could be a new supervisor w ho does not r elate w ell t o emplo yees, the lack of pa y r aises combined with la yoffs, or some other f orce. Effective decision-making results from careful investigation of the nature of the issue.

Second, w hen specifying a pr oblem or opportunity , stating the issue in a positi ve f ashion has v alue. F or e xample, the stat ement, “Our sales ar e dr opping,” can be r ephrased in a positi ve lig ht: “W e need t o find a w ay t o incr ease sales b y 10% in units ne xt quart er.” In essence, the pr oblem should be framed as the desired solution.

Identify Company Limitations Every compan y’s situation contains unique elements. Ar ound 2010, F acebook and T witter e xperienced e xplosive gr owth in t erms of usage and r evenues. In the same y ear, man y firms strugg led with lo w sales due t o a sputt ering econom y. When seeking t o sol ve a pr oblem or \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Decision-Making Models Section 6.4 to seize an opportunity , a prudent course of action in volves identifying compan y limitations. The most common ar eas in w hich limitations influence decision making ar e time, mone y, skilled personnel, technology, and organizational inertia.

Time limits decision making in thr ee w ays. First , decisions must oft en be made quickl y, gi ving managers and other leaders little time t o de velop and consider options. Second, w hen con - sidering alt ernatives, the length of time each lasts should be part of the pr ocess. The decision t o construct a new building or e xpand in some major w ay ma y r equire long-t erm financing, w hich limits compan y options t o pursue other pr ojects in the futur e. Thir d, the time fr om deci- sion t o implementation mer its deliber ation. A decision that has been made ma y tak e w eeks, months, or e ven y ears t o implement . Consequentl y, this aspect of the alt ernative should also be taken into account.

Money near ly al ways aff ects decision making. Firms simpl y cannot thr ow dollars at e very issue.

Skilled personnel become a limitation w hen competit ors emplo y w orkers with supe - rior talents or kno wledge, placing other companies at a disad vantage. T echnology limits deci- sion making w hen competing firms acquir e mor e ad vanced t echnology. Also, at times compa - nies kno w a t echnological br eakthrough that w ould sol ve a pr oblem is on the horizon, but is not yet available. Or ganizational inertia , or s ystematic r esistance t o change, oft en pr events quality solutions fr om being chosen. Managers kno w that subor dinates or t op management can pr event the implementation of a quality idea. T ypical f orms of inertia including stalling implementation and continual disagr eement with an y pot ential change t o be made, oft en r esult fr om or gani- zational pr ocesses, pr ocedures, and b y-laws that mak e inno vation mor e difficult . Such has been ar gued r egarding Gene ral Mot ors prior t o the compan y’s r ecent change in t op manage- ment (Colvin, 2016).

Generate Alternatives A key element in sol ving compan y pr oblems is cr eativity. While the most ob vious solutions can be the simplest and quick est t o implement , companies oft en achie ve gr eater success w hen the y identify a cr eative solu - tion.

F or e xample, r etailers and other companies that quickl y established a pr esence on T witter in its ear ly y ears enjo yed a major ad vantage in the mar ketplace with y ounger, t echno- logically-savvy cust omers, because it w as the best option f or r eaching those indi viduals. Fir ms that r elied on tr aditional methods such as stan - dard ad vertising pr ograms w ere soon at a disad vantage in r eaching that audience. T echniques that can assist emplo yees in gener ating cr eative alt ernatives include the following: Vadimguzhva/iStock/Thinkstock The best method for creative problem solving in a given situation can depend on the culture of the work group and the nature of the work.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Decision-Making Models Section 6.4 • brainstorming • nominal groups • finding the lowest common denominator • seeking an outside perspective The br ainstorming t echnique in volves a gr oup of emplo yees g athered t o gener ate cr eative ideas. The gr oup is gi ven the pr oblem and then ask ed t o quickl y come up with as man y ideas as possible in a short time period about how t o r esolve the issue. In some cases, r espondents simpl y shout out responses. For the session to succeed, four rules must be followed:

• The more ideas, the better.

• Wilder, more offbeat ideas are best.

• Build upon the ideas of other participants.

• Do not pass judgment on others’ ideas during the session.

Brainstorming r emains popular in or ganizations and departments w here cr eativity is a w ay of lif e. F or instance, ad vertising departments, r esearch and de velopment departments, and ent ertainment companies all rely on brainstorming.

Nominal gr oups ma y be used w hen participants ar e mor e r eserved. In the nominal gr oup ses- sion, inst ead of shouting out ideas, members writ e them do wn. Then, pot ential solutions ar e off ered in a r ound-robin f ashion, with each person tak ing a turn. P otential alt ernatives ar e then discussed and voted upon by ranking them from best to worst.

Finding the lo west common denominat or in volves trying t o think of the pr oblem in the sim- plest of t erms. Inst ead of trying t o find a w ay t o incr ease sales, f or e xample, it ma y be easier t o come up with methods t o gener ate st ore tr affic. The concept w ould be that if people visit the st ore, they will be more inclined to buy something.

Seeking an outside perspecti ve means visiting with som eone fr om another discipline or ar ea. A mar keter mig ht ask an accountant’s opinion. A pr oduction manager could visit with some- one fr om human r esources about a mor ale issue. The goal is t o incorpor ate a new point of view into the analysis and come up with new and unusual ways to solve a problem. Evaluate Alternatives With the identified limitations and alt ernatives in mind, managers can pr oceed t o the e val- uation stage. Oft en, the pr os and cons of each alt ernative ma y be list ed f or those in volved t o e xamine. Man y decisions ha ve been r eached b y disco vering the alt ernative with the best ad vantage-to-disadvantage r atio. F our other f actors ent er int o the e valuation stage: deci- sion quality , decision acceptance, uncertainty and risk, and the pot ential f or conflict during deliber ations.

The first f actor, decision quality , r epresents the r ational, anal ytical component of the pr ocess; it seek s maximization no matt er w hat the impact is on emplo yees and their concerns. The second, decisi on acceptance, will be based on people’s f eelings. A tr ade-off ma y e xist betw een the quality of a decision and its degr ee of acceptance. As an e xample, adopting a new t ech- nology could cr eate an ad vantage with r egard t o competition but could also lead t o la yoffs. Int ernal acceptance would logically be low for such an alternative.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Decision-Making Models Section 6.4 The thir d f actor influencing alt ernative e valuation is uncertainty and risk. Gr eater uncertainty means managers ha ve less inf ormation and do not kno w with confidence ho w the implemen - tation of an alt ernative will turn out . If the uncertainty r egarding the out come of a decision is hig h, then the compan y is assuming mor e risk with the decision. Managers must kno w if the y ar e operating in a risk-taking company or one that avoids risks.

The f ourth f actor in e valuating alt ernatives is the pot ential f or conflict during deliber ations. Decision mak ers do not oper ate in a v acuum. Alt ernatives that will ad versely aff ect other emplo yees or departments will encount er r esistance. Managers must be able and willing t o sort out political motives when evaluating alternatives.

Choose a Solution Three it ems merit consider ation w hen choosing a solut ion. First , managers should not e that solutions will oft en be combinations of alt ernatives r ather than a sing le option. Finding sets of ideas that work together should be the objective.

Second, an y solution chosen should be compar ed t o the “do nothing” option. In other w ords, the manager must mak e sur e the alt ernative off ers an ad vantage o ver taking no action at all.

Medical doct ors f ollow the maxim, “First , do no harm. ” Ther e ar e times w hen it is simpl y best t o let the patient heal without int ervention. Sports e xecutives f ollow the pr emise, “Some - times the best tr ade is the one y ou don ’t mak e.” In essen ce, w hen deciding t o tak e a particular course of action, it is ad visable t o mak e sur e that it off ers significant ad vantages o ver simpl y letting things take their natural course.

The thir d it em t o consider is that w hen an alt ernative has been chosen, managers should r estate their r easoning. The purpose is t o mak e sur e the manager can def end the choice at some lat er point . Man y e xecutives maintain decision “logs” or journals that spell out w hy a course of action was chosen, should they be asked to explain their reasoning by others.

Develop a Plan of Implementation A successful plan r equires mor e than a simple decision about w hich action t o tak e. Manag- ers must mak e sur e the decision is logicall y and efficie ntly carried out . Implementing plans in volves the use of “Ws” and “Hs,” as follows:

• Who is in charge?

• When should each step of implementation take place (timing issues)?

• Where will the solution be implemented?

• How should we proceed (sequence of events)?

The “w hy” question w as ans wered in the pr evious stage of the decision-making pr ocess, mak- ing the choice and stating the rationale.

Limitations to the Rational Decision-Making Model Although the r ational model continues t o be widel y used, managers r ecognize the limitations that accompan y this appr oach. R ational decision mak ing can be aff ected b y e xpectations, \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Decision-Making Models Section 6.4 emotions, compan y politics, personal attitudes and v alues, and a mismat ch of decision mak er and decision.

The e xpectations of other people can influence decisio n mak ers. A subor dinate, not wishing t o frustr ate a boss, supervis or, or t op manager , ma y choose a less viable option because the indi vidual kno ws it is the one the boss f avors. The e xpectations of peers, or peer pr essure, can dis rupt ef fective decision making. Finall y, the e xpectations of emplo yees can cause man y supervisors t o mak e poor decisions. F or instance, a supervisor w ho wishes t o be consider ed a “good gu y” ma y not t erminate a popular emplo yee, e ven w hen that person cannot eff ectively perf orm.

Two emotions in particular ma y aff ect r ational decision making. Anger oft en leads t o poor decisions, because w hen so meone is o vercome b y a str ong emotion, that person usuall y has difficulty thinking r ationally and clear ly. Managers should not mak e snap decisions w hen the y ar e mad. Second, f eelings of sadness or depr ession can influence decision mak ers. Depr essed indi viduals of ten do not ha ve the ener gy t o commit themsel ves t o decision making. Some - one w ho is ha ving a bad da y is ad vised t o postpone a decision until the indi vidual’s mood brig htens.

Company politics occur w hen indi viduals or departments seek t o influence decisions that f avor their int erests, r ather than o verall compan y int erests. P olitics aff ects funding decisions, task assignments, and pr omotion decisions in a wide number of companies. These f actors ar e described in greater detail in Chapter 11.

Personal attitu des aff ect se veral or ganizational oper ations and decision making within com - panies.

A misogynistic supervisor will lik ely not consider pr omoting a f emale, or e ven pa ying her at an equitable le vel w hen compar ed t o her male count erparts. F ollowing the t errorist attack s b y members of ISIS and Al Qaeda in F rance and other countries in the past se veral y ears, emplo yees with Islam ic r eligious belief s oft en f aced discrimination in the w orkplace. F urther, someone w ho has lost a tr easured f amily member t o an aut o accident in volving a drunk dri ver will lik ely ha ve str ong f eelings about alcohol consumption, w hich ma y aff ect w orkplace decisions about consumption as part of w ork functions or e ven during one’s lunch hour.

A mismat ch betw een a decision mak er and the type of decision t o be made oft en tak es place in the ar ea of risk attitudes. F or e xample, in some positions or pr ojects, a person with a risk - taking person ality ma y not be the best person t o mak e the decisions; in other ar eas, ho wever, a risk tak er ma y be the best choice. Man y companies seek t o emplo y risk managers t o super- vise company portfolios and holdings, taking appropriate levels of risk.

In summary , r ational decision-making models r emain pr evalent methods f or making or ga- nizational cho ices. The limits t o r ationality described in this section ha ve led t o other view- points about the nature of decision making. Nonrational Decision-Making Models Popular cultur e portr ays managers in a less-than-positi ve lig ht and assumes a cont entious r elationship betw een emplo yees and managers, as depict ed in cart oons such as Dilbert. In truth, man y managers ar e dedicat ed t o helping a compan y succeed w hile achie ving personal \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Decision-Making Models Section 6.4 goals. T o do so, it w ould not mak e sense t o r esort t o impulsi ve and irr ational decision-making pr ocesses. Inst ead, nonr ational models depict their deci sion-making pr ocess in a mor e r ealis- tic lig ht b y ack nowledging the pr esence of r ational-thinking pr ocesses in managerial decision making but noting ho w these instincts and methods ar e oft en assist ed b y other appr oaches. T wo such nonr ational mode ls of decision making ar e the bounded r ationality model and the g arbage can model.

The Bounded Rationality Model The r ational decision model has its r oots in economic theory . In micr oeconomic theory , it is assumed that decision mak ers ha ve access t o perf ect inf ormation, ar e perf ectly r ational, and f ollow one decision rule: maximization. Ther efore, a business decision w ould be made t o maximize profits. A personal decision w ould be made to maximize personal utility. Clear ly the pr esence of complet e inf ormation and perf ect r ationality ar e not oft en the case, e ven w hen emplo ying the six -step r ational decision-making model.

The bounded r ationality model sug - gests that a set of limitations pr events most managers fr om making perf ectly r ational decisions. The bounded r atio- nality model posits that managers do not ha ve enoug h time, ener gy, mone y, or br ainpower t o consider e very deci- sion al ternative; conseque ntly, the y try their best t o mak e quality deci- sions within those limitat ions. The ar chitect of the bounded r ationality model, Her bert Simon (195 7, 1977), does not ar gue that manage rs e xhibit irr ationality, but r ather that ther e ar e limits t o pr acticing perf ect r ationality.

In the model, managers emplo y heuristics, w hich ar e decision rules that help an indi vidual quickl y eliminat e alt ernatives. When a manager sa ys, “W e can ’t aff ord t o hir e an yone new ,” a decision rule has been set . In this case, it allo ws the manager t o understand that the financial impact associat ed with adding a new person eliminat es that option fr om consider ation. The manager can then emphasize other key elements of the problem and look for a solution.

One common decision rule is satisficing, w hich suggests that w hen a manager identifies an “acceptable” solution, the manager tak es it and quits looking. Satisficing has been called the “That’s good enoug h” rule. An y alt ernative that leads the manager t o sa y, “That’s good enoug h” will be chosen. In man y hiri ng decisions, an absolut ely ideal candidat e ma y not emer ge. The first indi vidual that causes the human r esource manager and supervisor t o sa y, “he or she will do ” has met the satisficing criterion.

The bounded r ationality model off ers a pr actical and r ealistic view of the w ays in w hich man y decisions ar e made. An yone w ho has pur chased a hous e or car pr obably has eng aged in the use of heuristics and satisficing. The same holds true w hen managers choose fr om a list of Design Pics/Thinkstock The bounded rationality model takes into account the natural limitations of an individual, as well as circumstantial restraints.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Decision-Making Models Section 6.4 potential job candidat es, mak e budget decisions, or identify pot ential plans and courses of action.

The Garbage Can Model A se cond nonr ational mode l suggests that managers e xhibit r andom patt erns w hen mak- ing decisions. In essence, managers maintain pr e-established sets of solutions f or pr oblems locat ed in indi vidual mental g arbage cans. If a solution appears t o mat ch a pr oblem, it will be chosen.

Manag ers utilizing the g arbage can appr oach ha ve no clear immediat e goals. Decision making is not structur ed (C ohen, Mar ch, & Olsen, 197 2). Inst ead, pr oblems, solutions, par - ticipants, and choice opportunities ar e br ought t ogether t o mak e decisions in a disor ganized f ashion.

The g arbage can model suggests that managers look f or con venient ans wers t o pr oblems. The gr eater the number of pr oblems t o r esolve, the less time a vailable that can be allocat ed t o each pr oblem. Ther efore, use of the g arbage can model optimizes decision-making time. Oft en decisions ar e aff ected b y political moti ves in the sense that an indi vidual will r esort t o or choose the solution w hich will best serv e immediat e personal int erests (Bo wer & Gilbert , 2007).

The g arbage can mod el pr ovides e xplanations f or the w ays in w hich managers seek t o mak e e xpedient decisions, especiall y in situations w here time pr essures and w ork o verload ar e present.

Historians suggest a g arbage can-type situation e xisted f ollowing the Sept ember 11, 2001 t errorist attac ks and the subsequent cr eation of the Department of Homeland Security in the U .S. go vernment. Some congr essional members belie ved that gr eater int egration of the major agencies (CIA, FBI, NS A) w ould r esult fr om the cr eation of an o verarching department and successfull y ar gued f or its cr eation. Lat er, in 2008, the U .S. bailout of the financial industry points t o the sear ch f or an immediat e solution t o a massi ve pr oblem, e ven as critics on one hand belie ved it w as t oo e xpensive, w hile others, notabl y billionair e W arren Buff et, compar ed the solution t o “half a Viagr a,” or an incomplet e appr oach t o r estoring the econom y. Both cases could be considered to be disorganized responses to a threatening situation. Comprehension Exercise 1. The decision-making model that includes heuristics and satisficing is the a. rational decision-making model b. bounded rationality model c. garbage can model d. brainstorming 2. The idea that managers look for convenient solutions when making decisions is best e xplained by which model?

a. rational actor b. behavioral decision making c. the garbage can model d. heuristics Answers: 1) b 2) c \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Influences on Decision Making Section 6.5 6.5 Influences on Decision Making Managerial sty les v ary in man y w ays. Some leaders e xhibit a mor e authoritarian and dir ective sty le w hereas others ar e mor e participati ve or consultati ve. These diff erences become e vident w hen managers ar e ask ed t o mak e decisions. This section considers v arious decision-making sty les as well as factors that influence decision makers, including those made in groups.

Decision-Making Styles Two f actors dr ive the methods b y w hich indi viduals mak e decisions: t olerance f or ambiguity and v alue orientation. T olerance f or ambiguity suggests the decision mak er understand he or she will not ha ve complet e inf ormation and cannot kno w the out comes of all pr oposed solutions.

V alue orientation r elates t o managerial pr eferences r egarding task s, t echnical con - cerns, people concerns, and social concerns. The combination of these tw o f actors leads t o f our decision- making sty les (R owe & Mason, 1987). T able 6.6 outlines the basics of these sty les.

Table 6.6: Decision-making styles Decision-making style Characteristics Directive Low tolerance for ambiguity/ High task and technical concern values Analytical High tolerance for ambiguity/ High task and technical concern values Behavioral Low tolerance for ambiguity/ Hig h people and social concern values Conceptual High tolerance for ambiguity/ Hig h people and social concern values The dir ective sty le emphasi zes logical, pr agmatic, and s ystematic methods f or making deci- sions. Managers w ho e xhibit a dir ective sty le oft en ha ve a lo w t olerance f or ambiguity and ar e pr one t o making quick decisions. This oft en results in an autocratic leadership sty le, because such indi viduals do not see k out additional perspecti ves fr om others and inst ead look f or quick solutions without consulting subordinates or peers.

The anal ytical sty le diff ers fr om the dir ective sty le in that those e xhibiting such a sty le ha ve a hig h t olerance f or ambiguity . Consequentl y, anal ytical decision mak ers ar e mor e willing t o w ait t o mak e decisions and seek t o g ather as much data as possible. The anal ytical sty le is most eff ective in new and uncertain situations in w hich long deliber ations ar e useful. The anal ytical sty le t ends t o fit with consultati ve leadership, as the decision mak er will seek inf or- mation from others to help make decisions.

The beha vioral sty le emphasizes social int eractions with subor dinates as part of the decision- making pr ocess. The lo w t olerance f or ambiguity leads him or her t o mak e r elatively quick decisions aft er discussing the pr oblem with others. The primary fla w with this appr oach ma y \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Influences on Decision Making Section 6.5 be the t endency t o compr omise t oo much. Beha vioral managers t end t o emplo y a participa - tive leadership style.

The conceptu al sty le seek s out social input and uses intuition combined with r easoning t o mak e decision s. Conceptual leaders t end t o be mor e participati ve and democr atic in sty le. Their hig h t olerance f or ambiguity ma y lead conceptual decision mak ers t o w ant t o talk t o as man y others as possible bef ore making a final decis ion. Conceptual decision mak ers also oft en focus on the long-term implications of decisions.

None of the f our sty les should be consider ed as super ior t o the other s. Each fits with indi vidual leaders and specific compan y situations. Pr oblems occur , ho wever, w hen the sty le does not fit the decision. Man y times, decision-making pr ocesses ar e assigned t o t eams, oft en with gr eat success, as illustrated in the OB in Action story regarding workplace safety at Harley-Davidson. OB in Action: Workplace Safety — A Team-Based Decision- Making Approach at Harley-Davidson The str ong r eliance on t eams t o enhance eff ectiveness at Har ley-Davidson has been in place f or man y y ears. Mor e r ecently, the compan y has achie ved acclaim f or a pr oactive, t eam-based appr oach t o achie ving gr eater le vels of saf ety and w ell-being f or emplo y- ees, including the 2014 Theodor e R oosevelt W ork- ers’ Compensation and Disability Management A ward (Ir eland, 2014). The compan y beg an with major in vestments in health, saf ety, and risk -management emplo yees. These indi viduals de veloped a compr ehensive pr o- gram de signed t o r each the v arious f actors r elated t o w ork-related injuries and then assigned t eams t o o versee programs.

One such t eam r esulted fr om the cr eation of a “h ybrid w orkers’ compensation claims model. ” It consists of indi viduals fr om Har ley-Davidson and v endor part - ners, including health and ph ysical ther apy cent er staff, field nurse case managers, consultants, and br okers. The t eam r egularly anal yzes claims and files r eports on any developments.

A second t eam comprises nurses, case managers, ph y- sicians, occupat ional/physical ther apists, and athletic tr ainers. These individuals are part of full-service health and fitness center programs.

Company leaders also hir ed a dedicat ed w orkers’ compensation adjust er f or each oper ating r egion. This t eam of adjust ers meets each y ear f or an “ Adjuster Summit” t o align findings. Their w orkloads are managed through caps in cases to which they are assigned.(continued) Peter Widmann/age fotostock/SuperStock Harley-Davidson is one of the world’s most well-known motorcycle manufacturers.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Influences on Decision Making Section 6.5 Group Decision Making As not ed at the beginning of this chapt er and Section 6.4, managers mak e decisions in the cont ext of gr oup influences, including peer gr oups and mor e f ormal gr oup settings. F urther, numer ous decisions ar e made b y gr oups r ather than indi viduals. The managerial imper ative will be t o iden tify times w hen a decision is best left t o a sing le indi vidual or w hen t o include gr oups in the pr ocess. Norm ally the choice in volves a comparison of the benefits and pr ob- lems associat ed with gr oup decision making r egarding the matt er t o be decided. T able 6.7 summarizes the key issues (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2005).

The f actors that influence the choice of in volving a gr oup in the decision-making pr ocess include time, decision importance or scope, the long-t erm implications of the decision, the a vailability of inf ormation, and the importance of emplo yee acceptance. Decisions that r equire quick action become less lik ely t o in volve a gr oup. Decisions with gr eater degr ees of importance and long-t erm implications will logicall y be pr esented t o gr oups. When a man - ager has suffi cient inf ormation t o mak e a quality deci sion, in volving a gr oup becomes less crucial.

When emplo yee acceptance r epresents a k ey f actor, the most common appr oach will be to involve a group in the decision (Vroom & Jago, 1988). OB in Action: Workplace Safety — A Team-Based Decision- Making Approach at Harley-Davidson (continued) The thr ee t op incident types (injuries) r eported at each manuf acturing location ar e subject t o indi vidual f ocus gr oup anal yses. Comple x claims ar e subject t o w eekly case management r eviews.

These t eam eff orts ar e support ed thr ough mor e car eful hiri ng pr ocedures. Indi viduals must be able t o saf ely perf orm task s bef ore being chosen. Har ley-Davidson has also implement ed r eturn-to-work and sta y-at-work policies including lif estyle assistance designed t o augment health y living practices, The net r esult has been a dr amatic decline in w ork-related injuries and claims. While the pr o- gram itself has been costl y, Har ley-Davidson’s corpor ate health services manager , Sue Gartner , firml y belie ves the eff ort is w orthwhile both in human t erms and the pot ential impact on long- t erm bottom line results (Ireland, 2014). R eflection and Application Questions1. Which of these teams would have the biggest impact on injury prevention, and which on helping those who have been hurt?

2. How would principles such as cooperation, interdependence, and dependence apply t o decision making within individual teams and with sets of teams in the larger or ganization?

3. Would this approach have value in other organizations? Why or why not?

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources Table 6.7: Benefits and problems with group decision making Benefits• Provides additional perspectives/expertise • Allo ws discussion and evaluation • Incr eases acceptance of and commitment to decisions • Can train employees in decision-making skills Pr oblems • More time-consuming than an individual decision • Conf ormity and compromise may prevail rather than decision quality • P otential to be out-shouted rather than out-reasoned • P otential for conflict • P otential for political rather than rational decisions Summary and Resources Chapter Summary A formal group is established by the organization and seeks to achieve company goals and objecti ves. Three common types of formal groups are work groups, committees, and project t eams. Informal groups revolve around activities, shared sentiments, and interactions. Both types of groups contain four types of members: the leader, opinion leaders, members in good standing, and the gatekeeper. Comprehension Exercise 1. The most logical, pragmatic and systematic decision-making style is a. directive b. analytical c. behavioral d. conceptual 2. Which statement applies to group decision making as compared to individual decision making?

a. r educes the potential for conflict b. takes less time c. increases the potential for acceptance of decisions d. limits the problem of conformity and compromise Answers: 1) a 2) c \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources Groups tend to go through the stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and, in some cases, adjourning. Norms in groups tend to revolve around effort/productivity, work beha viors, and social behaviors. As part of the group activities, members enact various roles, w hich are the parts people play in social settings. Expectations, norms, performance, evalu- ation, and sanctions continually define and refine the role. Problems emerge when the actor e xperiences disconnect created by role conflicts involving the contradictory elements within the role or with other roles the person plays. Role ambiguity reflects unclear direction and misunderstanding of the nature of the role. Role overload exists when the role player cannot complet e all assigned tasks. Effective group leadership can reduce or eliminate these poten- tial problems.

The goal of the group should be the primary determinant of its size. Three basic objectives associat ed with a group are producing an item/completing a project, solving problems, and collecting information/input. Effective group size tends to be approximately five to seven members.

Group leaders should be aware of social loafing, in which a member does not give full effort or fails to completely engage in the group’s work.

The degree of goal commitment, conformity, cooperation, and group control over members indicat es the level of group cohesiveness. Groups lacking cohesion experience numer- ous problems related to coordination and control. Cohesive groups enjoy several benefits, including a positive social atmosphere. Overly cohesive groups create problems for leaders, especiall y when groupthink dominates group deliberations and actions.

Group leaders should pay attention to roles and norms, making sure these serve group func- tioning.

At times the leader faces an outlier, who should be kept from damaging the morale of group members and effective group functioning.

Teams become distinct from groups when synergies emerge from greater interdependence and shared effort. Characteristics of teams include sharing leadership responsibilities among members, shifting from individual to individual plus collective responsibility, evalu- ation of success that is based on team outcomes rather than individual outcomes, improved collecti ve problem solving, and trust among members.

Quality teams result from a match between the composition of the team, the design of the w ork, contextual factors, and process variables. Numerous ideas about the nature of an eff ective team player exist, which provide each person with a series of options regarding w ays to engage in a group and become an effective member. Three managerial activities that can help managers lead employees to greater degrees of team participation are found thr ough recruiting and selection, coaching, and reward systems.

Decision making is an important managerial activity. A programmed decision is made when the nature of the problem is well understood, the choices are clear, and the results can be pr edicted with high levels of confidence. A nonprogrammed decision occurs when the situ- ation is unique and no previously established courses of action exist. Such decisions require mor e time and evaluation.

The rational decision-making model typically consists of six steps: state the problem or opportunity , identify company limitations, generate alternatives, evaluate alternatives, choose a solution, and develop a plan of implementation. Rational decision making can be \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources affected by expectations, emotions, company politics, personal attitudes and values, and a mismat ch of decision maker and decision.

Two nonrational models of decision-making are the bounded rationality model and the gar- bage can model. Bounded rationality posits that managers do not have enough time, energy, mone y, or brainpower to consider every decision alternative; consequently, managers will try their best to make quality decisions within those limitations, using heuristics. The gar- bage can model suggests managers maintain pre-established sets of solutions for problems locat ed in individual garbage cans.

Two factors drive the methods by which individuals make decisions: tolerance for ambiguity and value orientation. Combinations of these elements lead to four decision-making styles: dir ective, anal ytical, behavioral, and conceptual. Managers can match the sty les t o the natur e of the decision and organization in which the decision is made.

Regarding individual versus group decision making, the managerial imperative will be to identify times when a decision is best left to a single individual and when to include groups in the process. Managers should consider the benefits and problems associated with group decision making when choosing how to proceed. CASE STUDY: The Crew Doug has just mo ved t o Bent onville, Ar kansas, aft er li ving in Wisconsin f or se veral y ears. A di vorce caused the mo ve. His marriage beg an at the age of 20 and ended at age 24. He mo ved t o Northern Arkansas to get a change of scenery and to look for better job prospects.

Doug w as a t echnical school gr aduate. His f ather taug ht him a gr eat deal about the construc - tion industry and had acquaint ed him with a v ariety of t ools and t echniques. He w as skilled at fr aming, finish carpentry , and se veral other aspects of building and maint enance. He w orked with brick s and mortar , but w as most comf ortable with a hammer and nails. His pr evious emplo yer would describe him as “hard-working, reliable, and skilled.” Based on r eferences fr om his pr evious emplo yer, Doug obtained a position with the Main Str eet Construction Compan y. The oper ation consist ed of thr ee cr ews, each of w hich w orked t ogether y ear r ound. Each cr ew emplo yed six w orkers, one de signated as f oreman and the oth - ers without titles. P ay le vels v aried b y skills, y ears of service, and some adjustments f or merit , based on perf ormance e valuations of the f oreman and the judgments of the o wner, Mik e Cope.

Doug joined the cr ew that had been t ogether the longest . One of their members had been badl y injur ed in a car accident and w as e xpected t o be gone f or at least a y ear. The member stat ed his int ention t o r ejoin the cr ew as soon as his health w ould allo w. Doug figur ed he w as onl y a t emporary r eplacement with this t eam and w as uncertain about w here he w ould be assigned next.

The firs t se veral w eeks on the job w ere difficult . Others in the cr ew tr eated Doug as if he bar ely e xisted. No one spok e t o him, e xcept f or perfunct ory con versations. During lunch hours the r est of the crew would abandon the work site, leaving Doug to eat or rest alone.

Doug w as used t o this f orm of indoctrination. He had seen it happen on his last job. This time, ho wever, it felt worse. By the third week he was highly frustrated. Members of the crew did (continued) \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources Review Questions Define formal and informal groups and name the four types of members in each.

A formal group is established by the organization and seeks to achieve company goals and objectives. An informal group, or a friendship group, emerges without the endorsement of organizational leaders and does not have a designated structure or work toward organi- zational goals other than socialization and friendship. The four types of members are the leader, opinion leaders, members in good standing, and the gatekeeper.

Name the five stages of group development.

The stages include forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.

What five factors shape roles?

Five major factors shape the nature of a role: expectations, norms, performance, evaluation, and sanctions.

What is social loafing and how is it related to group size?

In some instances, extreme declines in individual effort result from the addition of new group members. Social loafing occurs when group members give less effort to a group than they would if working individually.

What factors affect group cohesiveness?

The factors include the size of the group, opportunities to interact, homogeneity or hetero- geneity, group status, an outside threat, membership stability, and the effectiveness of the group leader.

What are four primary forms of teams?

Four of the most common are types of teams are self-managed work teams, problem-solving teams, cross-functional teams, and virtual teams.

What four elements combine to create effective teams?

Quality teams result from a match between the composition of the team, the design of the work, contextual factors, and process variables.

What three managerial activities can help managers lead employees to greater degrees of team participation?

The likelihood that employees will be team players can be increased through three manage- rial activities: recruiting and selection, coaching, and reward systems.

What are the six steps of the rational decision-making model?

The rational decision-making model consists of six steps: (1) state the problem or oppor- tunity, (2) identify company limitations, (3) generate alternatives, (4) evaluate alternatives, (5) choose a solution, and (6) develop a plan of implementation. CASE STUDY: The Crew (continued) nothing t o mak e him look bad, but the y also w ould not help him. He w ould oft en end up taking e xtra time t o finish a task because no one w ould help hold boar ds t o be cut or hand him t ools w hen he w orked in the hig h places on ladders or scaff olding. He w ould ha ve t o climb do wn inst ead. Doug belie ved that if he said something or complained t o the f oreman or Mik e his situation would worsen.

During the f ourth w eek, Doug became a ware that an opening in another cr ew w as a vailable. He talk ed with Mik e about the spot in pri vate, w ondering if he mig ht fit in bett er with another set of w orkers. Mik e t old him t o sta y with his cr ew and t o “hang in ther e.” Mik e continued, “These gu ys ar e adjusting t o losing F red, and the y’re taking some of their frustr ation out on y ou. Any other guy I might put on that crew would have the same problem.” “Maybe,” Doug r eplied, “But ma ybe if the y could use me as a scapegoat then the new gu y w ould ha ve it easier.” “Tell y ou w hat,” Mik e off ered, “If it doesn ’t get an y bett er in a month, I’ll s witch y ou with w ho- ever I hire for the other crew.” “Deal,” Doug r esponded. He figur ed he could handle an ything f or a month. Kno wing that ther e w as a way out made it easier.

The ne xt time Doug needed help he simpl y ask ed f or it . The cr ew member seemed shock ed b y his r equest t o help cut and fit a corner . The man assist ed Do ug, and the tw o seemed t o enjo y a f airly pleasant con versation w hile the y w orked. Doug said he w as sorry that F red had been hurt so badl y. The cr ew member not ed the good job Doug had done in finishing the corner piece.

The ne xt br eak time, Doug w as surprised t o see tw o of the cr ew w ander o ver f or a visit . F or the first time, the y talk ed about each other’s personal li ves and int erests. Doug t ook a chance on opening up to them, but also believed he had nothing to lose.

After a w eek passed, the gr oup seemed t o include Doug int o mor e of the w orkday, and e ven in vited him t o a bar on F riday nig ht. The ne xt da y, F red, the injur ed cr ew member , came t o the job sit e f or a visit . The cr ew rus hed t o his pick up t o visit . Doug sta yed back and finished a task. He then gradually moved toward the rest of the crew.

“Hi, I’m Doug,” he said to Fred, offering his hand, “I’m filling in until you get back.” The comment seemed t o trul y br eak the ice. Doug w as soon in vited on lunch br eaks and w as included on inside jok es and pr anks. He disco vered common int erests in slo w-pitch soft ball and bowling, and was invited to join both teams.

Doug finished the y ear with the cr ew. The entir e gr oup r eceived hig h perf ormance mar ks in their annual e valuations. When F red r eturned, the cr ew w ent t o Mik e and ask ed if Doug could r emain as a se venth member of the t eam. Mik e agr eed, seeing a good thing had e volved. Not long aft er, the cr ew’s f oreman mo ved t o another city . The cr ew petitioned Mik e t o mak e Doug the new foreman, even though he was the youngest member.

Case Questions 1. Explain the five factors that shaped roles when Doug first joined the crew and again aft er he had been accepted.

2. What group cohesiveness factors were present in this scenario?

3. What factors changed the crew from a group into a team?

4. Explain the interactions between formal and informal groups in this story.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources Review Questions Define formal and informal groups and name the four types of members in each.

A formal group is established by the organization and seeks to achieve company goals and objecti ves. An informal group, or a friendship group, emerges without the endorsement of or ganizational leaders and does not have a designated structure or work toward organi- zational goals other than socialization and friendship. The four types of members are the leader , opinion leaders, members in good standing, and the gatekeeper.

Name the five stages of group development.

The stages include forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.

What five factors shape roles?

Five major factors shape the nature of a role: expectations, norms, performance, evaluation, and sanctions.

What is social loafing and how is it related to group size?

In some instances, extreme declines in individual effort result from the addition of new gr oup members. Social loafing occurs when group members give less effort to a group than the y would if working individually.

What factors affect group cohesiveness?

The factors include the size of the group, opportunities to interact, homogeneity or hetero- geneity, group status, an outside threat, membership stability, and the effectiveness of the gr oup leader.

What are four primary forms of teams?

Four of the most common are types of teams are self-managed work teams, problem-solving t eams, cross-functional teams, and virtual teams.

What four elements combine to create effective teams?

Quality teams result from a match between the composition of the team, the design of the w ork, contextual factors, and process variables.

What three managerial activities can help managers lead employees to greater degrees of team participation?

The likelihood that employees will be team players can be increased through three manage- rial activities: recruiting and selection, coaching, and reward systems.

What are the six steps of the rational decision-making model?

The rational decision-making model consists of six steps: (1) state the problem or oppor- tunity, (2) identify company limitations, (3) generate alternatives, (4) evaluate alternatives, (5) choose a solution, and (6) develop a plan of implementation. CASE STUDY: The Crew (continued) nothing to make him look bad, but they also would not help him. He would often end up taking extra time to finish a task because no one would help hold boards to be cut or hand him tools when he worked in the high places on ladders or scaffolding. He would have to climb down instead. Doug believed that if he said something or complained to the foreman or Mike his situation would worsen.

During the fourth week, Doug became aware that an opening in another crew was available. He talked with Mike about the spot in private, wondering if he might fit in better with another set of workers. Mike told him to stay with his crew and to “hang in there.” Mike continued, “These guys are adjusting to losing Fred, and they’re taking some of their frustration out on you. Any other guy I might put on that crew would have the same problem.” “Maybe,” Doug replied, “But maybe if they could use me as a scapegoat then the new guy would have it easier.” “Tell you what,” Mike offered, “If it doesn’t get any better in a month, I’ll switch you with who- ever I hire for the other crew.” “Deal,” Doug responded. He figured he could handle anything for a month. Knowing that there was a way out made it easier.

The next time Doug needed help he simply asked for it. The crew member seemed shocked by his request to help cut and fit a corner. The man assisted Doug, and the two seemed to enjoy a fairly pleasant conversation while they worked. Doug said he was sorry that Fred had been hurt so badly. The crew member noted the good job Doug had done in finishing the corner piece.

The next break time, Doug was surprised to see two of the crew wander over for a visit. For the first time, they talked about each other’s personal lives and interests. Doug took a chance on opening up to them, but also believed he had nothing to lose.

After a week passed, the group seemed to include Doug into more of the workday, and even invited him to a bar on Friday night. The next day, Fred, the injured crew member, came to the job site for a visit. The crew rushed to his pickup to visit. Doug stayed back and finished a task. He then gradually moved toward the rest of the crew.

“Hi, I’m Doug,” he said to Fred, offering his hand, “I’m filling in until you get back.” The comment seemed to truly break the ice. Doug was soon invited on lunch breaks and was included on inside jokes and pranks. He discovered common interests in slow-pitch softball and bowling, and was invited to join both teams.

Doug finished the year with the crew. The entire group received high performance marks in their annual evaluations. When Fred returned, the crew went to Mike and asked if Doug could remain as a seventh member of the team. Mike agreed, seeing a good thing had evolved. Not long after, the crew’s foreman moved to another city. The crew petitioned Mike to make Doug the new foreman, even though he was the youngest member.

Case Questions 1. Explain the five factors that shaped roles when Doug first joined the crew and again after he had been accepted.

2. What group cohesiveness factors were present in this scenario?

3. What factors changed the crew from a group into a team?

4. Explain the interactions between formal and informal groups in this story.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources What five factors limit the viability of rational decision-making models?

Rational decision making can be affected by five issues: expectations, emotions, company politics, personal attitudes and values, and a mismatch of decision maker and decision.

What two nonrational models explain decision making in organizations?

The two nonrational models of decision making are the bounded rationality model and the g arbage can model.

What four decision-making styles are present in organizations?

The four styles are directive, analytical, behavior, and conceptual.

Analytical Exercises 1. In the field of marketing, the product life-cycle model explains how a product r eaches the market (introduction), grows, reaches maturity or saturation, begins to decline, and dies. The same model has been applied to business types, such as drive- in theatres and mom-and-pop grocery stores. Do these analogies bear any resem- blance to the stages of group development described in this chapter? What are the primary similarities and differences?

2. The five main factors that shape roles are role expectations, norms, role perfor- mance, evaluation, and sanctions. Three problems associated with effective role per- formance ar e role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload. Relate these concepts t o the following occupations: • police officer • member of the clergy • accountant in a major firm • assembly-line worker 3. Relate the concepts of social loafing and group outliers to potential effects on group cohesi veness. How might a manager use the factors that increase or decrease cohe- sion to reduce these two problems?

4. The four types of teams described in this chapter are self-managed, problem solving, cr ossfunctional, and virtual. Which should be used in the following circumstances? Def end your reasoning. • oil rig explosion and oil spill investigation • market research regarding company advertising effectiveness in other countries • in vestigation of a dramatic rise in employee turnover in one plant, but not in others in the company • developing a social media presence for an insurance company 5. Compare the rational decision-making model with the bounded rationality and g arbage can models when making the following decisions. Select the one you think w ould be best and explain your reasoning. • decision to downsize and use outsourcing instead • choice of automobile company from which to purchase new fleet of compan y cars \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources • choice of state in which the company will build a new warehouse and delivery f acility • employee promotions Key Terms cross-functional team Employees from diff erent areas in a company who are br ought together for a specific purpose.

formal group  A group established by the or ganization that seeks to achieve company goals and objectives. gr oup Two or more people, interacting, with a common purpose or goal.

group cohesiveness  The degree of goal commitment , conformity, cooperation, and gr oup control over members.

groupthink What results when group pr essures for conformity become so intense that the group avoids unusual, minority, or unpopular views. heuristics Decision rules that help an indi- vidual quickly eliminate alternatives in the bounded rationality model.

informal group  A group that emerges without the endorsement of organizational leaders and does not have a designated structur e or work toward organizational goals, focusing instead on socialization and friendship.

nonpr ogrammed decision  A decision made when the situation is unique and no pr eviously established courses of action e xist. or ganizational inertia  Systematic resis- tance to change.

problem-solving team A group of mem- bers of an organization that examines specific organizational problems or pr ocesses. pr ogrammed decision A decision that is made when the nature of the problem is w ell understood, the choices are clear, and the results can be predicted with high levels of confidence.

role ambiguity  What results from lack of clarity about a role.

role conflict What occurs when an individ- ual confronts differing role expectations.

role overload  What occurs when someone is asked to do too much within a role.

satisficing  A heuristic, or decision rule, under which a manager identifies an “acceptable” solution, takes it, and quits looking.

self-managed w ork team A group of emplo yees who are assigned managerial r esponsibilities combined with work tasks. social loafing What occurs when group members give less effort than they would if w orking individually. t eams Small sets of people that generate s ynergies through greater interdependence and shared effort, which in turn lead to agr eed-upon goals.

virtual teams Teams that employ the Int ernet and digital technologies to achieve common goals.

\251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. \251 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.