MCom I Semester Foundation Group Behavior Study Material Notes
Table of Contents
MCom I Semester Foundation Group Behavior Study Material Notes: Defining and Classifying groups Stages of Group Development Group Sturucturee An Alternative Model For Temporary Groups with deadlines Group Decision Making Groupthink and Group shift Summary and Implication for Managers Most Important Notes for Mcom I Semester Students :
BBA I Semester Managerial Economics Cost Control & Cost Reduction Study Material Notes
Defining and Classifying Groups
A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives. Groups can be either formal or informal. By formal groups, we mean those defined by the organization’s structure, with designated work assignments establishing tasks. In formal groups, the behaviors that one should engage in are stipulated by and directed toward organizational goals. The six members making up an airline flight crew are an example of a formal group. In contrast, informal groups are alliances that are neither formally structured nor organizationally determined. These groups are natural formations in the work environment that appear in response to the need for social contact. Three employees from different departments who regularly eat lunch together are an example of an informal group.
It’s possible to further sub classify groups as command, task, interest, or friendship groups. Command and task groups are dictated by the formal organization, while interest and friendship groups are informal alliances.
A command group is determined by the organization chart. It is composed of the individuals who report directly to a given manager. An elementary school principal and her 18 teachers form a command group, as do the director of postal audits and his five inspectors.
Task groups, also organizationally determined, represent those working together to complete a job task. However, a task group’s boundaries are not limited to its immediate hierarchical superior. It can cross command relationships. For instance, if a college student is accused of a campus crime, it may require communication and coordination among the dean of academic affairs, the dean of students, the registrar, the director of security, and the student’s advisor. Such a formation would constitute a task group. It should be noted that all command groups are also task groups, but because task groups can cut across the organization, the reverse need not be true.
People who may or may not be aligned into common command or task groups may affiliate to attain a specific objective with which each is concerned. This is an interest group. Employees who band together to have their vacation schedules altered, to support a peer who has been fired, or to seek improved working conditions represent the formation of a united body to further their common interest.
Groups often develop because the individual members have one or more common characteris tics. We call these formations friendship groups. Social alliances, which frequently extend outside the work situation, can be based on similar age or ethnic heritage, support for Mohan Bagan football, or the holding of similar political views, to name just a few such characteristics.
Informal groups provide a very important service by satisfying their members’ social needs. Because of interactions that result from the close proximity of workstations or task interactions, we and that workers often do things together-like play golf, commute to work, take lunch, and chat during coffee breaks. We must recognize that these types of interactions among individuals, even though informal, deeply affect their behavior and performance.
There is no single reason why individuals join groups. Because most people belong to a number of groups, it’s obvious that different groups provide different benefits to their members. Exhibit 8-1 summarizes the most popular reasons people have for joining groups.
Foundation Group Behavior
Stages of Group Development
Groups generally pass through a standardized sequence in their evolution. We call this sequence the five-stage model of group development. Recent studies, however, indicate that temporary groups with task-specific deadlines follow a very different pattern. In this section, we describe the five-stage general model and an alternative model for temporary groups with deadlines.
Foundation Group Behavior
The Five-Stage Model
As shown in Exhibit 8-2, the five-stage group development model characterizes groups as proceeding through five distinct stages: forming, storming, forming, performing, and adjourning.
The first stage, forming, is characterized by a great deal of uncertainty about the group’s purpose, structure, and leadership. Members are “testing the waters” to determine what types of behavior are acceptable. This stage is complete when members have begun to think of themselves as part of a group.
The storming stage is one of intergroup conflict. Members accept the existence of the group, but there is resistance to the constraints that the group imposes on individuality. Furthermore, there is conflict over who will control the group. When this stage is complete, there will be a relatively clear hierarchy of leadership within the group.
The third stage is one in which close relationships develop and the group demonstrates cohe sevens. There is now a strong sense of group identity and camaraderie. This norming stage is complete when the group structure solidifies and the group has assimilated a common set of expectations of what defines correct member behavior.
The fourth stage is performing. The structure at this point is fully functional and accepted. Group energy has moved from getting to know and understand each other to performing the task at hand.
For permanent work groups, performing is the last stage in their development. However, for temporary committees, teams, task forces, and similar groups that have a limited task to perform, there is an adjourning stage. In this stage, the group prepares for its disbandment. High task performance is no longer the group’s top priority. Instead, attention is directed toward wrapping up activities. Responses of group members vary in this stage. Some are upbeat, basking in the group’s ace plishments. Others may be depressed over the loss of camaraderie and friendships gi the work group’s life.
Many interpreters of the five-stage model have assumed that a group becomes more effective as it progresses through the first four stages. Although this assumption may be generally true, what makes a group effective is more complex than this model acknowledges. Under some conditions, high levels of conflict are conducive to high group performance. So we might expect to find situations in which groups in Stage II outperform those in Stage III or IV. Similarly, groups do not always proceed clearly from one stage to the next. Sometimes, in fact, several stages go on simultaneously, as when groups are storming and performing at the same time. Groups even occasionally regress to previous stages. Therefore, even the strongest proponents of this model do not assume that all groups follow its five-stage process precisely or that Stage IV is always the most preferable.
Foundation Group Behavior
Another problem with the five-stage model, in terms of understanding work-related behavior.is that it ignores organizational context. For instance, a study of a cockpit crew in an airliner found that, within ten minutes, three strangers assigned to fly together for the first time had become a high-performing group. What allowed for this speedy group development was the strong organizational context surrounding the tasks of the cockpit crew. This context provided the rules, task definitions, information, and resources needed for the group to perform. They didn’t need to develop plans, assign roles, determine and allocate resources, resolve conflicts, and set norms the way the five-stage model predicts.
Foundation Group Behavior
An Alternative Model: For Temporary Groups with Deadlines
Temporary Groups with deadlines don’t seem to follow the previous model. Studies indicate that they have their own unique sequencing of actions (or inaction): (1) Their first meeting sets the group’s direction; (2) this first phase of group activity is one of inertia; (3) a transition takes place at the end of this first phase, which occurs exactly when the group has used up half its allotted times (4) transition initiates major changes; (b) a second phase of inertia follows the transitions and the aroun’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity. This pattern is called the punctuated-equilibrium model and is shown in Exhibit 8-3.
The first meeting sets the group’s direction. A framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions through which the group will approach its project emerges in this first meeting. These lasting patterns can appear as early as the first few seconds of the group’s life.
Once set, the group’s direction becomes “written in stone” and is unlikely to be reexamined throughout the first half of the group’s life. This is a period of inertia–that is, the group tends to stand still or become locked into a fixed course of action. Even if it gains new insights that challenge initial patterns and assumptions, the group is incapable of acting on these new insights in Phase 1.
One of the more interesting discoveries made in these studies was that each group experienced its transition at the same point in its calendar-precisely halfway between its first meeting and its official deadline—despite the fact that some groups spent as little as an hour on their project while others spent six months. It was as if the groups universally experienced a midlife crisis at this point. The midpoint appears to work like an alarm clock, heightening members’ awareness that their time is limited and that they need to “get moving.”
This transition ends Phase 1 and is characterized by a concentrated burst of changes, dropping of old patterns, and adoption of new perspectives. The transition sets a revised direction for Phase 2.
Phase 2 is a new equilibrium or period of inertia. In this phase, the group executes plans created during the transition period.
The group’s last meeting is characterized by a final burst of activity to finish its work.
In summary, the punctuated-equilibrium model characterizes groups as exhibiting long periods of inertia interspersed with brief revolutionary changes triggered primarily by their members’ awareness of time and deadlines. Keep in mind, however, that this model doesn’t apply to all groups. It’s essentially limited to temporary task groups who are working under a time-constrained completion deadline.?
Foundation Group Behavior
Group Structure
Workgroups are not unorganized mobs. They have a structure that shapes the behavior of members and makes it possible to explain and predict a large portion of individual behavior within the group as well as the performance of the group itself. What are some of these structural variables? They include roles, norms, status, group size, and the degree of group cohesiveness.
Foundation Group Behavior
Roles
Shakespeare said, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely play ers. Using the same metaphor, all group members are actors, cach playing a me By this term, we mean a set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit. The understanding of role behavior would be dramatically simplified if each of us chose one role and played it out” regularly and consistently. Unfortunately, we are required to play a number of diverse roles, both on and off our jobs. As we’ll see, one of the tasks in understand ing behavior is grasping the role that a person is currently playing
For example, R. K. Kabra is the President of Hindustan Sanitaryware ludustries Ltd. (HSIL), a large ceramic manufacturer in Bahadurgarh. He has a number of roles that he fulfills on that job for instance, a HSIL employee member of the top management strategist, leader, spokesperson on behalf of the management, Off the job, Kabra finds himself in still more roles: husband, father, Rotarian, tennis plaser chairman of a religious community. Many of these roles are compatiable: some cre ate conflicts. For instance, how does a chairman of the religious community intu ence his managerial decisions regarding layoffs, expense account padding, provid ing accurate information to government agencies etc. Can the role demands of his job be reconciled with the demands of his roles as husband and father?
The issue should be clear: Like Kabra, we all are required to play a number of roles, and our behavior varies with the role we are playing, Kabra’s behavior when he attends prayer meeting in the morning is different from his behavior on the tennis court later that same day. So different groups impose different role require ments on individuals
Role Identity There are certain attitudes and actual behaviors consistent with a role, and they create the role identity. People have the ability to shift roles rapidly when they recognize that the situation and its demands clearly require major changes. For instance, when union stewards were promoted to supervisory positions, it was found aged from pro-union to pro-management within a few months of their promotion. When these promotions had to be rescinded later because of economic difficulties in the firm, it was found that the demoted supervisors had once again adopted their pro-union attitudes.
Role Perception Our view of how we’re supposed to act in a given situation is a role perception. Based on an interpretation of how we believe we are supposed to behave, we engage in certain types of behavior
Foundation Group Behavior
Where do we get these perceptions? We get them from stimuli all around us-friends, books. movies, television. Many current law enforcement officers learned their roles from reading Joseph Wambaugh novels, many of tomorrow’s lawyers will be influenced by watching the actions of attor neys in Law & Order or The Practice and the role of crime investigators, as portrayed on the television program C.I.D., is directing thousands of young people into careers in criminology. Of course, the primary reason that apprenticeship programs exist in many trades and professions is to allow begin ners to watch an expert, so that they can learn to act as they are supposed to
Role Expectations Role expectations are defined as how others believe you should act in a given situation. How you behave is determined to a large extent by the role defined in the context in which you are acting. For instance, the role dignity, while a football coach is seen as aggressive, dynamic, and inspiring to his players.
In the workplace, it can be helpful to look at the topic of role expectations through the presence psychological contract. There is an unwritten agreement that exists between employees employer. This psychological contract sets out mutual expectations-what management Petrom workers, and vice versa. In effect, this contract defines the behavioral expectations at go with every role. For instance, management is expected to treat employees justly provide acceptable working conditions, clearly communicate what is a fair day’s work, and give feedback on how well the employee is doing. Employees are expected to respond by demonstrating a good attitude, following directions, and showing lovalty to the organization
What happens when role expectations as implied in the psychological contract are not met? If management is derelict in keeping up its part of the bargain, we can expect negative repercussions on employee performance and satisfaction. When employees fail to live up to expectations, the result is usually some form of disciplinary action up to and including firing.
Role Conflict When an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations, the result is role conflict. It exists when an individual finds that compliance with one role requirement may make it more difficult to comply with another 10 At the extreme, it would include situations in which two or more role expectations are mutually contradictory.
Our previous discussion of the many roles Sengupta had to deal with included several role conflicts—for instance, Sengupta’s attempt to reconcile the expectations placed on him as a husband and father with those placed on him as an executive with TISCO. The former, as you will remember, emphasizes stability and concern for the desire of his wife and children to remain in Jamshedpur. TISCO, on the other hand, expects its employees to be responsive to the needs and requirements of the company. Although it might be in Sengupta’s financial and career interests to accept a relocation, the conflict comes down to choosing between family and career role expectations. An Experiment: Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment One of the more illuminating role experiments was done a number of years ago by Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his associates. They created a “prison” in the basement of the Stanford psychology building; hired at $15 a day two dozen emotionally stable, physically healthy, law-abiding students who scored “normal average” on extensive personality tests; randomly assigned them the role of either “guard” or “prisoner;” and established some basic rules.
To get the experiment off to a “realistic” start, Zimbardo got the cooperation of the local police department. They went, unannounced, to each future prisoners’ home, arrested and handcuffed them, put them in a squad car in front of friends and neighbors, and took them to police headquarters, where they were booked and fingerprinted. From there, they were taken to the Stanford prison.
At the start of the planned two-week experiment, there were no measurable differences between the individuals assigned to be guards and those chosen to be prisoners. In addition, the guards received no special training in how to be prison guards. They were told only to “maintain law and order” in the prison and not to take any nonsense from the prisoners. Physical violence was forbidden. To simulate further the realities of prison life, the prisoners were allowed visits from relatives and friends. And although the mock guards worked eight-hour shifts, the mock prisoners were kept in their cells around the clock and were allowed out only for meals, exercise, toilet privileges, head-count lineups, and work details.
It took the “prisoners” little time to accept the authority positions of the guards, or the mock guards to adjust to their new authority roles. After the guards crushed a rebellion attempt on the sec ond day, the prisoners became increasingly passive. Whatever the guards “dished out,” the prisoners took. The prisoners actually began to believe and act as if they were, as the guards constantly remin ded them, inferior and powerless. And every guard, at some time during the simulation, engaged in abusive, authoritative behavior. For example, one guard said, “I was surprised at myself. I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoner’s cattle, and I kept thinking: ‘I have to watch out for them in case they try something.’ ” Another guard added, “I was tired of seeing the prisoners in their rags and smelling the strong odors of their bodies that filled the cells. I watched them tear at each other on orders given by us. They didn’t see it as an experiment. It was real and they were fighting to keep their identity. But we were always there to show them who was boss.” Surprisingly, during the entire experiment-even after days of abuse-not, one prisoner said, “Stop this. I’m a student like you. This is just an experiment!”
The simulation actually proved to succeed in demonstrating how quickly individuals learn new roles. The researchers had to stop the experiment after only six days because of the participants’ pathological reactions. And remember, these were individuals chosen precisely for their normalcy and emotional stability.
What should you conclude from this prison simulation? The participants in this experiment had, like the rest of us, learned stereotyped conceptions of guard and prisoner roles from the mass media and their own personal experiences in power and powerlessness relationships gained at home (parent-child), in school teacher-student), and in other situations. This, then, allowed them easily and rapidly to assume roles that were very different from their inherent personalities. In this case, we saw that people with no prior personality pathology or training in their roles could execute extreme forms of behavior consistent with the roles they were playing.
Foundation Group Behavior
Norms
Did you ever notice that golfers don’t speak while their partners are putting on the green or that employees don’t criticize their bosses in public? Why? The answer is: “Norms!”
All groups have established norms, that is, acceptable standards of behavior that are shared by the group’s members. Norms tell members what they ought and ought not to do under certain cir substances. From an individual’s standpoint, they tell what is expected of you in certain situations. When agreed to and accepted by the group, norms act as a means of influencing the behavior of group members with a minimum of external controls. Norms differ among groups, communities, and societies, but they all have them.
The Hawthorne Studies It’s generally agree of the importance norms play in influencing enlightenment grew out of a series of st Works in Chicago between 1924 and 192 overseen by Harvard professor Elton Mayo, the and sentiments were closely related, that behavior, that group standards were highly cu money was less a factor in determining worker output security, Let us briefly review the Hawthorne investigation findings in explaining group behavior generally agreed among behavioral scientists that full-scale appreciation omits play in influencing worker behavior did not occur until the early 1930s. This out of a series of studies undertaken at Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne between 1924 and 1932.15 Originally initiated by Western Electric officials and later a professor Elton Mayo, the Hawthorne studies concluded that a worker’s behavior were closely related, that group influences were significant in affecting individual Group standards were highly effective in establishing individual worker output, and that actor in determining worker output than were group standards, sentiments, and
The Hawthorne researchers began by examining the relation between the physical environ productivity. Illumination and other working conditions were selected to represent this physical environment. The researchers’ initial findings contradicted their anticipated results.
They began with illumination experiments with various groups of workers. The researchers manipulated the intensity of illumination upward and downward, while at the same time nouns changes in group output. Results varied, but one thing was clear: In no case w decrease in output in proportion to the increase or decrease in illumination. So the researchers Iroduced a control group: An experimental group was presented with varying intensity of illumi nation, while the controlled unit worked under a constant illumination intensity. Again, the results were bewildering to the Hawthorne researchers. As the light level was increased in the experimental unit, output rose for both the control and the experimental group. But to the surprise of the researchers, as the light level was dropped in the experimental group. productivity continued to increase in both groups. In fact, a productivity decrease was observed in the experimental group only when the light intensity had been reduced to that of moonlight. The Hawthorne researchers concluded that illumination intensity was only a minor influence among the many influences that affected an employee’s productivity, but they could not explain the behavior they had witnessed.
As a follow-up to the illumination experiments, the researchers began a second set of experiments in the relay assembly test room at Western Electric. A small group of women was isolated from the main work group so that their behavior could be more carefully observed. They went about their job of assembling small telephone relays in a room laid out similarly to their normal department. The only significant difference was the placement in the room of a research assistant who acted as an observer-keeping record of output rejects, working conditions, and a daily log sheet describing everything that happened. Observations covering a multiyear period found that this small group’s output increased steadily. The number of personal absences and those due to sickness were approximately one-third of those recorded by women in the regular production department. What became evident was that this group’s performance was significantly influenced by its status of being a “special” group. The women in the test room thought that being in the experimental group was fun that they were in sort of an elite group, and that management was concerned with their interest by engaging in such experimentation. In essence, workers in both the illumination and assembly-test-room experiments were reacting to the increased attention they were receiving.
Foundation Group Behavior
A third study in the bank wiring observation room was introduced to ascertain the effect of a sophisticated wage incentive plan. The assumption was that individual workers would maximize their productivity when they saw that it was directly related to economic rewards. The most important finding coming out of this study was that employees did not individually maximize their outputs. Rather, their output became controlled by a group norm that determined what was a proper day’s work, Output was not only being restricted, but individual workers were giving erroneous nonarte The total for a week would check with the total weeks output, but the daily reports showed a steady level of output regardless of actual daily production. What was join Interviews determined that the group was operating well below its capability and was leveling out protect itself. Members were afraid that if they significantly increased their output, the unit incentive rate would be cut, the expected daily output would be increased, layoffs might occur or slower workers would be reprimanded. So the group established its idea of a fair output much nor too little. They helped each other out to ensure their reports were nearly level.
The norms the group established included a number of “don’ts.” Don’ be a rate-buster, turning out too much work. Dony bea chiseler, turning out too little work. Don’t be a squealer on any of your peers.
How did the group enforce these norms? Their methods were neither gentle nor subtle. They included sarcasm, name-calling, ridicule, and even physical punches to the upper arm of members who violated the group’s norms. Members would also ostracize individuals whose behavior was against the group’s interest
The Hawthorne studies made an important contribution to our understanding of group behavior particularly the significant place that norms have in determining individual work behavior.
Common Classes of Norms A work group’s norms are like an individual’s fingerprints each is unique. Yet there are still some common classes of norms that
Probably the most common class of norms is performance norms. We their members with explicit cues on how hard they should work, how to get the job done, their level of output, appropriate levels of tardiness, and the like. 15 These norms are extremely powerful in affecting an individual employee’s performance-they are capable of significantly modifying a performance prediction that was based solely on the employee’s ability and level of personal motivation.
Foundation Group Behavior
A second category encompasses appearance norms. This includes things like appropriate dress, loyalty to the work group or organization, when to look busy, and when it’s acceptable to goof off. Some organizations have formal dress codes. However, even in their absence, norms frequently develop to dictate the kind of clothing that should be worn to work. Similarly, presenting the appearance of loy alty is important, especially among professional employees and those in the executive ranks. So it’s often considered inappropriate to be openly looking for another job.
Another category concerns social arrangement norms. These norms come from informal work groups and primarily regulate social interactions within the group. With whom group members eat lunch, friendships on and off the job, social games, and the like are influenced by these norms.
A final category relates to allocation of resources norms. These norms can originate in the group or in the organization and cover things like pay, assignment of difficult jobs, and allocation of new tools and equipment
Foundation Group Behavior
Conformity As a member of a group, you desire acceptance by the group. Because of your desire for acceptance, you are susceptible to conforming to the group’s norms. There is considerable evidence that groups can place strong pressures on individual members to change their attitudes and behaviors to conform to the group’s standard.”
Do individuals conform to the pressures of all the groups to which they belong? Obviously not. because people belong to many groups and their norms vary. In some cases, they may even have con tradictory norms. So what do people do? They conform to the important groups to which they belong or hope to belong. The important groups have been referred to as reference groups, and they re characterized as ones in which a person is aware of other members; defines himself or her self as a member, or would like to be a member and feels that the group members are significant to him or her. The implication, then, is that all groups do not impose equal conformity pressures on their members.
The impact that group pressures for conformity can have on an individual member’s judgment and attitudes was demonstrated in the now-classic studies by Solomon Asch.18 Asch made up groups of seven or eight people, who sat around a table and were asked to compare two cards held by the experimenter. One card had one line, the other had three lines of varying length. As shown in Exhibit 844. one of the lines on the three-line card was identical to the line on the one-line card. Also as shown in Exhibit 844, the difference in line length was quite obvious; under ordinary conditions. subjects made fewer than 1 percent errors. The object was to announce aloud which of the three lines matched the single line. But what happens if the members in the group begin to give incorrect answers? Will the pressures to conform result in an unsuspecting subject (USS) altering his or her answer to align with the others? That was what Asch wanted to know. So he arranged the group so that only the USS was unaware that the experiment was “fixed.” The seating was prearranged: The USS was placed so as to be one of the last to announce his or her decision.
The experiment began with several sets of matching exercises. All the subjects gave the right answers. On the third set, however, the first subject gave an obviously wrong answer-for example, saying “C” in Exhibit 8-4. The next subject gave the same wrong answer, and so did the others until it got to the unknowing subject. He knew “B” was the same as “X” yet everyone had said “C.” The decision confronting the USS was this: Do you publicly state a perception that differs from the preannounced position of the others in your group? Or do you give an answer that you strongly believe is incorrect in order to have your response agree with that of the other group members?
The results obtained by Asch demonstrated that over many experiments and many trials, 75 per cent of the subjects gave at least one answer that conformed that is, that they knew was wrong but that was consistent with the replies of other group members-and the average for conformers was 37 percent. What meaning can we draw from these results? They suggest that there are group norms that press us toward conformity. That is, we desire to be one of the group and avoid being visibly different.
The above conclusions are based on research that was conducted 50 years ago. Has time altered their validity? And should we consider these findings generalizable across cultures? The evidence indicates that there have been changes in the level of conformity over time; and Asch’s findings are culture-bound. Specifically, levels of conformity have steadily declined since Asch’s studies in the early 1950s. In addition, conformity to social norms is higher in collectivist cultures than in individual alistic cultures. Nevertheless, even in individualistic countries, you should consider conformity to norms to still be a powerful force in groups. Deviant Workplace Behavior Ted Vowinkel is frustrated by a coworker who constantly spread malicious and unsubstantiated rumors about him. Debra Hundley is tired of a member of her work team who, when confronted with a problem, takes out his frustration by veiling and screaming at her and other work team members. And Rhonda Lieberman recently quit her job as a dental hygienist after being constantly sexually harassed by her employer.
What do these three episodes have in common? They represent employees being exposed of deviant workplace behavior 20 This term covers a full range of antisocial actions by organizational members that intentionally violate established norms and that result in negative consequences for the organization, its members, or both. Exhibit 8-5 provides a typology of deviant workplace behaviors with examples of each.
Few organizations will admit to creating or condoning conditions that encourage and maintain deviant norms. Yet they exist. Employees report, for example, an increase in rudeness and disregard toward others by bosses and coworkers in recent years. And nearly half of employees who have suffreed this incivility report that it has led them to think about changing jobs, with 12 percent actually quitting because of it.21
As with norms in general, individual employees’ antisocial actions are shaped by the group context within which they work. Evidence demonstrates that the antisocial behavior exhibited by a workgroup is a significant predictor of an individual’s antisocial behavior at work. In other words, deviant workplace behavior is likely to flourish where it’s supported by group norms. What this means for managers is that when deviant workplace norms surface, employee cooperation, commitment, and motivation is likely to suffer. This, in turn, can lead to reduced employee productivity and job satisfaction and increased turnover.
Status Status-that is, a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others permeates every society. Despite many attempts, we have made little progress toward a classless society. Even the smallest group will develop roles, rights, and rituals to differentiate its members. Status is an important factor in understanding human behavior because it is a significant motivator and has major behavioral consequences when individuals perceive a disparity between what they believe their status to be and what others perceive it to be.
What Determines Status? According to status characteristics theory, differences in status characteristics create status hierarchies within groups. Moreover, status tends to be derived from one of three sources: the power a person wields over others; a person’s ability to contribute to a group’s goals; and an individual’s personal characteristics
People who control the outcomes of a group through their power tend to be perceived as high status. This is due largely to their ability to control the group’s resources. So a group’s formal leader or manager is likely to be perceived as high status when he or she can allocate resources like preferred assignments, desirable schedules, and pay increases. People whose contributions to a group are critical to the group’s success also tend to have high status. The outstanding performers on sports teams, for example, typically have greater status on the team than do average players. Finally, someone who has personal characteristics that are positively valued by the group such as good looks, intelligence, money, or a friendly personalitywill typically have higher status than someone who has fewer valued attributes. This tends to explain why attractive people are often the most popular in high school Note, of course, that a characteristic valued by one group may mean nothing in another. So high intelligence may give you status at your monthly Environmental Club meetings, but it may provide no benefit at all to you at your Tuesday bowling league.
Foundation Group Behavior
The concept of equity presented in Chapter 6 applies to status. People expect rewards to be proportionate to costs incurred. If Rosma and Shiela are the two finalists for the head nurse position in a hospital, and it is clear that Rosma has more seniority and better preparation for assuming the pro motion, Shiela will view the selection of Rosma to be equitable. However, if Shiela is chosen because she is the daughter-in-law of the hospital director, Rosma will believe an injustice has been committed
The trappings that go with formal positions are also important elements in maintaining equity. When we believe there is an inequity between the perceived ranking of an individual and the status accouterments that person is given by the organization, we are experiencing status incongruence An example of this kind of incongruence is the more desirable office location being held by a lower ranking individual. Pay incongruence has long been a problem in the insurance industry, where top sales agents often earn two to five times more than senior corporate executives. The result is that it is very hard for insurance companies to entice successful agents into management positions. Our point is that employees expect the things an individual has and receives to be congruent with his or her status.
Groups generally agree within themselves on status criteria and, hence, there is usually high con currence in group rankings of individuals. However, individuals can find themselves in a conflict situation when they move between groups whose status criteria are different or when they join groups whose members have heterogeneous backgrounds. For instance, business executives may use per sonal income or the growth rate of their companies as determinants of status. Government bureau crats may use the size of their budgets. Blue-collar workers may use years of seniority. In groups made up of heterogeneous individuals or when heterogeneous groups are forced to be interdependent, status differences may initiate conflict as the group attempts to reconcile and align the differ ing hierarchies. As we’ll see in the next chapter, this can be a particular problem when management creates teams made up of employees from across varied functions within the organization.
Foundation Group Behavior
Status and Culture Before we leave the topic of status, we should briefly address the issue of cross-culture transferability. Do cultural differences o cultural differences affect status? The answer affect status? The answer is a resounding Yes.30 is a resounding
The importance of status does vary between cultures. The French, for example, are highly status-conscious. Also, countries differ on the criteria that create status. For instance, status for Latin Americans and Asians tends to be derived from family position and formal roles held in organizations. In contrast, while status is still important in countries like the United Sates and Australia, it tends to be less “in your face.” And it tends to be bestowed more on accomplishments than on titles and family trees.
The message here is to make sure you understand who and what holds status when interacting with people from a culture different from your own. An American manager who doesn’t understand that office size is no measure of a Japanese executive’s position or who fails to grasp the importance that the British place on family genealogy and social class is likely to unintentionally offend his Japanese or British counterpart and, in so doing, lessen his interpersonal effectiveness.
Size Does the size of a group affect the group’s overall behavior? The answer to this question is a definite Yes, but the effect is contingent on what dependent variables you look at.fi
The evidence indicates, for instance, that smaller groups are faster at completing tasks than are larger ones. However, if the group is engaged in problem solving, large groups consistently get better marks than their smaller counterparts. Translating these results into specific numbers is a bit more hazardous, but we can offer some parameters. Large groups-with a dozen or more members are good for gaining diverse input. So if the goal of the group is fact finding, larger groups should be more effective. On the other hand, smaller groups are better at doing something productive with that input. Groups of approximately seven members, therefore, tend to be more effective for taking action.
One of the most important findings related to the size of a group has been labeled social loafing. Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. It directly challenges the logic that the productivity of the group as a whole should at least equal the sum of the productivity of each individual in that group.
A common stereotype about groups is that the sense of team spirit spurs individual effort and enhances the group’s overall productivity. But that stereotype may be wrong. In the late 1920s, a German psychologist named Max Ringelmann compared the results of individual and group perton mance on a rope pulling task. He expected that the group’s effort would be equal to the sum of the efforts of individuals within the group. That is, three people pulling together should exert three times as much pull on the rope as one person, and eight people should exert eight times as much pull. Ringelmann’s results, however, didn’t confirm his expectations. One person pulling on a rope alone exerted an average of 63 kilograms of force. In groups of three, the per person force dropped to 53 kilograms. And in groups of eight, it fell to only 31 kilograms per person
Foundation Group Behavior
Replications of Ringelmann’s research with similar tasks have generally supported his findings Group performance increases with group size, but the addition of new members to the group has diminishing returns on productivity. So more may be better in the sense that the total productive a group of four is greater than that of three people, but the individual productivity of each group member declines.
What causes this social loafing effect? It may be due to a belief that others in the group are not car rying their fair share. If you see others as lazy or inept, you can reestablish equity by reducing your effort. Another explanation is the dispersion of responsibility. Because the results of the group cannot be attributed to any single person, the relationship between an individual’s input and the group’s output is clouded. In such situations, individuals may be tempted to become “free riders and coast on the group’s efforts. In other words, there will be a reduction in efficiency when individuals think that their contribution cannot be measured.
The implications for OB of this effect on work groups are significant. When managers use collec. tive work situations to enhance morale and teamwork, they must also provide means by which individual efforts can be identified. If this isn’t done, management must weigh the potential losses in productivity from using groups against any possible gains in worker satisfaction. However, this conclusion has a Western bias. It’s consistent with individualistic cultures, like the United States and Canada, that are dominated by self-interest. It is not consistent with collective societies, in which individuals are motivated by in-group goals. For instance, in studies comparing employees from the United States with employees from the People’s Republic of China and Israel (both collectivist societies), the Chinese and Israelis showed no propensity to engage in social loafing. In fact, the Chinese and Israelis actually performed better in a group than when working alone.
The research on group size leads us to two additional conclusions: (1) Groups with an odd number of members tend to be preferable to those with an even number; and (2) groups made up of five or seven members do a pretty good job of exercising the best elements of both small and large groups,17 Having an odd number of members eliminates the possibility of ties when votes are taken. And groups made up of five or seven members are large enough to form a majority and allow for diverse input, vet small enough to avoid the negative outcomes often associated with large groups, such as domination by a few members, development of subgroups, inhibited participation by some members, and excessive time taken to reach a decision.
Cohesiveness Groups differ in their cohesiveness, that is, the degree to which members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group. For instance, some work groups are cohesive because the members have spent a great deal of time together, or the group’s small size facilitates high interaction, or the group has experienced external threats that have brought members close together. Cohesiveness is important because it has been found to be related to the group’s productivity.99
Studies consistently show that the relationship of cohesiveness and productivity depends on the performance related norms established by the group. If performance-related norms are high (for example, high output, quality work, cooperation with individuals outside the group), a cohesive group will be more productive than will a less cohesive group. But if cohesiveness is high and per formance norms are low, productivity will be low. If cohesiveness is low and performance norms are high, productivity increases, but less than in the high-cohesiveness/high-norms situation. When cohesiveness and performance-related norms are both low, productivity will tend to fall into the low to-moderate range. These conclusions are summarized in Exhibit 8-6.
What can you do to encourage group cohesiveness? You might try one or more of the following suggestions: (1) Make the group smaller. (2) Encourage agreement with group goals. (3) Increase the time members spend together, (4) Increase the status of the group and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership in the group. (5) Stimulate competition with other groups. (6) Give rewards to the group rather than to individual members. (7) Physically isolate the group.40
Foundation Group Behavior
Group Decision Making
The belief characterized by juries-that two heads are better than one has long been accepted as a basic component in the legal systems of many countries. This belief has expanded to the point that. today, many decisions in organizations are made by groups, teams, or committees. In this section, we want to review group decision making. Groups Versus the Individual Decision-making groups may be widely used in organizations, but does that mean that group decisions are preferable to those made by an individual alone? The answer to this question depends on a number of factors. Let’s begin by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of groups.
Strengths of Group Decision Making Groups generate more complete information and knowledge by gregating the resources of several individuals, groups bring more input into the decision process to more input, groups can bring heterogeneity to the decision process. They offer way of views. This opens up the opportunity for more approaches and alternatives to be d ed. The evidence indicates that aroun will almost always outperform even the best indiVidal, so groups generate higher quality decisions. Finally, groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution. Many decisions fail after the final choice is made because people don’t accept the solution Group members who participated in making a decision are likely to enthusiastically support the decision and encourage others to accept it.
Foundation Group Behavior
Weaknesses of Group Decision Making In spite of the pluses noted, group decisions have their drawbacks. They’re time-consuming Groups typically take more time to reach a solution than would be the case is an individual were making the decision alone. There are conformity pressures in groups.
The desire by group members to be accepted and considered an asset to the group can result in squashing any overt disagreement Group discussion can be dominated by one or a few members. If this dominant coalition is composed of low- and medium-ability members, the group’s overall effectiveness will suffer. Finally, group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility. In an individual decision, it’s clear who is accountable for the final outcome. In a group decision, the responsibility of any single member is watered down.
Foundation Group Behavior
Effectiveness and Efficiency Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on the criteria you use for defining effectiveness. In terms of accuracy, group decisions will generally tend to be more accurate. A comprehensive review of the evidence indicates that group judgments are more accurate than the judgments of typical individuals, although they’re less accurate than the judgments of the most accurate group member. However, if decision effectiveness is defined in terms of speed, individuals are superior. If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effective than individuals. And if effectiveness means the degree of acceptance the final solution achieves, the nod again goes to the group.44
But effectiveness cannot be considered without also assessing efficiency. In terms of efficiency. groups almost always stack up as a poor second to the individual decision maker. With few exceptions, group decision making consumen more work hours than if an individual were to tackle the same problem alone. The exceptions tend to be the instances in which, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talking to people. Because groups can include members from diverse areas, the time spent searching for information can be reduced. However, as we noted, these advantages in efficiency tend to be the exception Groups are generally less efficient than individuals. In deciding whether to use groups, then, consideration should be given to assessing whether increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the losses in efficiency.
Summary In summary, groups offer an excellent vehicle for performing many of the steps in the decision-making process. They are a source of both breadth and depth of input for information gathering. If the group is composed of individuals with diverse backgrounds, the alternatives gener ated should be more extensive and the analysis more critical. When the final solution is agreed on. there are more people in a group decision to support and implement it. These pluses, however, can be more than offset by the time consumed by group decisions, the internal conflicts they create, and the pressures they generate toward conformity.
Foundation Group Behavior
Groupthink and Group shift
Two byproducts of group decision-making have received a considerable amount of attention by researchers in OB. As we’ll show, these two phenomena have the potential to affect the group’s ability to appraise alternatives objectively and to arrive at quality decision solutions.
The first phenomenon, called groupthink, is related to norms. It describes situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views. Groupthink is a disease that attacks many groups and can dramatically hinder their performance. The second phenomenon we will review is called groupshift. It indicates that in discussing a given set of alternatives and arriving at a solution, group members tend to exaggerate the initial positions that they hold. In some situations, caution dominates, and there is a conservative shift. More often, however, the evidence indicates that groups tend toward a risky shift. Let’s look at each of these phenomena in more detail
Groupthink Have you ever felt like speaking up in a meeting, classroom, or informal group, but decided against it? One reason may have been shyness. On the other hand, you may have been a victim of groupthink, the phenomenon that occurs when group members become so enamored of seeking concurrence that the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action and the full expression of deviant, minority, or unpopular views. It describes a deterioration in an individual’s mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment as a result of group pressures. 67
We have all seen the symptoms of the groupthink phenomenon:
1 Group members rationalize any resistance to the assumptions they have made. No matter how strongly the evidence may contradict their basic assumptions, members behave so as to reinforce those assumptions continually.
2. Members apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express doubts about any of thegroup’s shared views or who question the validity of arguments supporting the alternative favored by the majority.
3. Members who have doubts or hold differing points of view seek to avoid deviating from what appears to be group consensus by keeping silent about misgivings and even minimizing to themselves the importance of their doubts.
4. There appears to be an illusion of unanimity. If someone doesn’t speak, it’s assumed that he or she is in full accord. In other words, abstention becomes viewed as a Yes vote.”
In studies of historic American foreign policy decisions, these symptoms were found to prevail when government policy-making groups failed-unpreparedness at Pearl Harbor in 1941, the U.S. invasion of North Korea, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and the escalation of the Vietnam War.” More recently, the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters and the failure of the main mirror on the Hubble telescope have been linked to decision processes at NASA in which groupthink symptoms were evident. And groupthink was found to be a primary factor leading to setbacks at both British Airways and retailer Marks & Spencer as they tried to implement globalization strategies.
Groupthink appears to be closely aligned with the conclusions Asch drew in his experiments with a lone dissenter. Individuals who hold a position that is different from that of the dominant majority are under pressure to suppress, withhold, or modify their true feelings and beliefs. As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement-to be a positive part of the group-than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption is necessary to improve the effectiveness of the group’s decisions
Foundation Group Behavior
Does groupthink attack all groups? No. It seems to occur most often when there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive image of their group that they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to this positive image 52 So groupthink is not a dissenter suppres sion mechanism as much as it’s a means for a group to protect its positive image. For NASA. Its prob lems stem from its attempt to confirm its identity as “the elite organization that could do no wrong. 53
What can managers do to minimize groupthinkP1 One thing is to monitor group size. People grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases and, although there is no magic number that will eliminate groupthink, individuals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups get larger than about 10 members. Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of deliberation. Another thing is to appoint one group member to play the role of devil’s advocate. This member’s role is to overtly challenge the majority position and offer divergent perspectives. Still another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate active discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group and intensifying identity protection. One such exercise is to have group members talk about dangers or risks involved in a decision and delaying discussion of any potential gains. By requiring members to first focus on the negatives of a decision alternative, the group is less likely to stifle dissenting views and more likely to gain an objective evaluation.
Foundation Group Behavior
Groupshift In comparing group decisions with the individual decisions of members within the group, evidence suggests that there are differences. In some cases, the group decisions are more conservative than the individual decisions. More often, the shift is toward greater risk.56
What appears to happen in groups is that the discussion leads to a significant shift in the positions of members toward a more extreme position in the direction in which they were already leaning before the discussion. So conservative types become more cautious and the more aggressive types take on more risk. The group discussion tends to exaggerate the initial position of the group.
Groupshift can be viewed as actually a special case of groupthink. The decision of the group reflects the dominant decision-making norm that develops during the group’s discussion. Whether the shift in the group’s decision is toward greater caution or more risk depends on the dominant pre discussion norm. The greater occurrence of the shift toward risk has generated several explanations for the pheargued, for instance, that the discussion creates familiarization among the members. As they become more comfortable with each other, they also become more bold and daring. Another argument is that most first-world societies value risk, that we admire individuals who are willing to take risks, and that group discussion motivates members to show that they are at least as willing as their peers to take risks. The most plausible explanation of the shift toward risk. however, seems to be that the group diffuses responsibility. Group decisions free any single member from accountability for the group’s final choice. Greater risk can be taken because even if the decision fails, no one member can be held wholly responsible.
So how should you use the findings on groupshift? You should recognize that group decisions exaggerate the initial position of the individual members, that the shift has been shown more often to be toward greater risk, and that whether or not a group will shift toward greater risk or caution is a function of the members’ prediscussion inclinations.
Foundation Group Behavior
Group Decision-Making Techniques
The most common form of group decision-making takes place in interacting groups. In these groups, members meet face-to-face and rely on both verbal and nonverbal interaction to communicate with each other. But as our discussion of groupthink demonstrated, interacting groups often censor themselves and pressure individual members toward conformity of opinion. Brainstorming, the nominal group technique, and electronic meetings have been proposed as ways to reduce many of the problems inherent in the traditional interacting group.
Brainstorming is meant to overcome pressures for conformity in the interacting group that retard the development of creative alternatives. It does this by utilizing an idea-generation process that specifically encourages any and all alternatives, while withholding any criticism of those alternatives
Foundation Group Behavior
In a typical brainstorming session, a half-dozen to a dozen people sit around a table. The group leader states the problem in a clear manner so that it is understood by all participants. Members then “free-wheel” as many alternatives as they can in a given length of time. No criticism is allowed. and all the alternatives are recorded for later discussion and analysis. That one idea stimulates others and that judgments of even the most bizarre suggestions are withheld until later encourage group members to think the unusual.” Brainstorming, however, is merely a process for generating ideas. The following two techniques go further by offering methods of actually arriving at a preferred solution 59
The nominal group technique restricts discussion or interpersonal communication during the decision-making process, hence, the term nominal Group members are all physically present, as in a traditional committee meeting, but members operate independently. Specifically, a problem is presented and then the following steps take place:
Foundation Group Behavior
1 Members meet as a group but, before any discussion takes place, cach member independently writes down his or her ideas on the problem.
2. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. Each member takes his or her turn, presenting a single idea until all ideas have been presented and recorded. No discussion takes place until all ideas have been recorded.
3. The group now discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them.
4. Each group member silently and independently ranks the ideas. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.
The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits the group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking, as does the interacting group.
The most recent approach to group decision making blends the nominal group technique with sophisticated computer technology. It’s called the computer assisted group or electronic meeting Once the technology is in place, the concept is simple. Up to 50 people sit around a horseshoe shaped table, empty except for a series of computer terminals. Issues are presented to participants and they type their responses onto their computer screen. Individual comments, as well as aggregate votes, are displayed on a projection screen.
The proposed advantages of electronic meetings are anonymity, honesty, and speed. Participants can anonymously type any message they want and it flashes on the screen for all to see at the push of a participant’s board key. It also allows people to be brutally honest without penalty. And it’s suppos edly fast because chitchat is eliminated, discussions don’t digress, and many participants can talk ar once without stepping on one another’s toes. The early evidence, however, indicates that electronic meetings don’t achieve most of their proposed benefits. Evaluations of numerous studies found that electronic meetings actually led to decreased group effectiveness, required more time to complete tasks, and resulted in reduced member satisfaction when compared to face-to-face groups. Nevertheless, current enthusiasm for computer-mediated communications suggests that this technology is here to stay and is likely to increase in popularity in the future.
Each of these four group decision techniques has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. The choice of one technique over another will depend on what criteria you want to emphasize and the cost-benefit trade-ofl. For instance, as Exhibit 8-8 indicates, the interacting group is good for achieving commitment to a solution, brainstorming develops group cohesiveness, the nominal group technique is an inexpensive means for generating a large number of ideas, and electronic meetings minimize social pressures and conflicts.
Foundation Group Behavior
Summary and Implications for Managers
Performance A number of group structural variables show a relationship to performance. Among the more prominent are role perception, norms, status differences, the size of the group, and cohesiveness.
There is a positive relationship between role perception and an employee’s performance evalua tion.62 The degree of congruence that exists between an employee and his or her boss in the perception of the employee’s job influences the degree to which that employee will be judged as an effective performer by the boss. To the extent that the employee’s role perception fulfills the boss’s role expectations, the employee will receive a higher performance evaluation.
Norms control group member behavior by establishing standards of right and wrong. The norms of a given group can help to explain the behaviors of its members for managers. When norms support high output, managers can expect individual performance to be markedly higher than when group norms aim to restrict output. Similarly, norms that support antisocial behavior increase the likelihood that individuals will engage in deviant workplace activities.
Status inequities create frustration and can adversely influence productivity and the willingness to remain with an organization. Among individuals who are equity-sensitive, incongruence is likely to lead to reduced motivation and an increased search for ways to bring about fairness (i.e., taking another job). In addition, because lower-status people tend to participate less in group discussions, groups characterized by high status differences among members are likely to inhibit input from the lower-status members and to underperform their potential.
The impact of size on a group’s performance depends on the type of task in which the group is engaged. Larger groups are more effective at fact-finding activities. Smaller groups are more effective at action-taking tasks. Our knowledge of social loafing suggests that if management uses larger groups, efforts should be made to provide measures of individual performance within the group.
Foundation Group Behavior
We found that cohesiveness can play an important function in influencing a group’s level of productivity. Whether or not it does depends on the group’s performance-related norms.
Satisfaction As with the role perception-performance relationship, high congruence between a boss and employee as to the perception of the employee’s job shows a significant association with high employee satisfaction. Similarly, role conflict is associated with job-induced tension and job dissatisfaction.64
Most people prefer to communicate with others at their own status level or a higher one rather than with those below them.65 As a result, we should expect satisfaction to be greater among employees whose job minimizes interaction with individuals who are lower in status than themselves.
The group size-satisfaction relationship is what one would intuitively expect: Larger groups are associated with lower satisfaction 66 As size increases, opportunities for participation and social interaction decrease, as does the ability of members to identify with the group’s accomplishments. At the same time, having more members also prompts dissension, conflict, and the formation of subgroups, which all act to make the group a less pleasant entity of which to be a part.
