CHAPTER9 Foundations of Group Behavior Questions for Review 9-1. What are the different types of groups? Answer: 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. It is possible to sub-classify groups as command, task, interest, or friendship groups. A command group is determined by the organization chart. It is composed of direct reports to a given manager. Task groups – organizationally determined, represent those working together to complete a job task. 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. All command groups are also task groups, but the reverse need not be true. An interest group is people who affiliate to attain a specific objective with which each is concerned. Friendship groups often develop because the individual members have one or more common characteristics. Social alliances, which frequently extend outside the work situation, can be based on similar age or ethnic heritage. 9-2. What are the key components of the punctuated-equilibrium model? Answer: Temporary groups with deadlines have their own unique sequencing of actions (or inaction). This pattern is shown in the punctuated-equilibrium model. o Their first meeting sets the group’s direction. o This first phase of group activity is one of inertia. o A transition takes place at the end of this phase, which occurs exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time. o A transition initiates major changes. o A second phase of inertia follows the transition. o The group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity. 9-3a. How do role requirements change in different situations? Answer: Different groups impose different role requirements of individuals. •Role Perception – An individual’s view of how he or she is supposed to act in a given situation – received by external stimuli. •Role Expectations – How others believe a person should act in a given situation. •Psychological Contract –An unwritten agreement that sets out mutual expectations of management and employees. •Role Conflict – A situation in which an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations 9-3. How do group norms influence an individual’s behavior? Answer: All groups have norms—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 circumstances. Norms are important because they: •Facilitate the group’s survival. •Increase the predictability of group members’ behaviors. •Reduce embarrassing interpersonal problems for group members. •Allow members to express the central values of the group and clarify what is distinctive about the group’s identity. 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. Status is a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others. We live in a class-structured society despite all attempts to make it more egalitarian. High-status members of groups often are given more freedom to deviate from norms than other group members. High-status people are also better able to resist conformity pressures. The previous findings explain why many star athletes, famous actors, top-performing salespeople, and outstanding academics seem oblivious to appearance or social norms. 9-4. How do status and size differences affect group performance? Answer: Group size does affect performance. More than 12 people are considered a large group and seven or fewer are considered a small group. Groupthink is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. The Ringelmann’s Rope Pull: greater levels of productivity but with diminishing returns as group size increases, caused by either equity concerns or a diffusion of responsibility (free riders).As a manager, you need to build in individual accountability. To prevent social loafing, a manager can set group goals, increase intergroup competition, use peer evaluation, and distribute group rewards based on individual effort. 9-5. How can cohesiveness and diversity support group effectiveness? Answer: Cohesiveness is the degree to which group members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group. Cohesiveness has been linked to productivity. When performance-related norms established by the group are high, a cohesive group will be more productive than one that is less cohesive. If cohesiveness is high and performance norms are low, productivity will also be low. There are ways for managers to increase cohesiveness: •Make the group smaller. •Encourage agreement with group goals. •Increase time members spend together. •Increase group status and admission difficulty. •Stimulate competition with other groups. •Give rewards to the group, not individuals. •Physically isolate the group. Diversity refers to the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one another. Diversity appears to have a mixed impact on group performance, with some studies suggesting that diversity can help performance and others suggesting it can hurt it. It appears the situation makes a difference in whether positive or negative results pre dominate. One possible side effect in diverse teams—especially those that are diverse in terms of surface level characteristics—is faultlines, or perceived divisions that split groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as sex, race, age, work experience, and education. 9-6. What are the strengths and weaknesses of group (versus individual) decision making? Answer: •Group Strengths: o Generate more complete information and knowledge o Offer increased diversity of views and greater creativity o Increased acceptance of decisions o Generally more accurate (but not as accurate as the most accurate group member •Group Weaknesses: o Time-consuming activity o Conformity pressures in the group o Discussions can be dominated by a few members o A situation of ambiguous responsibility Experiential Exercise Surviving the Wild: Join a Group or Go It Alone? You are a member of a hiking party. After reaching base camp on the first day, you decide to take a quick sunset hike by yourself. After hiking a few exhilarating miles, you decide to return to camp. On your way back, you soon realize that you are lost. You have shouted for help, to no avail. It is now dark. And getting cold. Your Task Without communicating with anyone else in your group, read the following scenarios and choose the best answer. Keep track of your answers on a sheet of paper. You have 10 minutes to answer the 10 questions. 9-8. The first thing you decide to do is to build a fire. However, you have no matches, so you use the bow-and-drill method. What is the bow-and-drill method? a. A dry, soft stick is rubbed between one’s hands against a board of supple green wood. b. A soft green stick is rubbed between one’s hands against a hardwood board. c. A straight stick of wood is quickly rubbed back-and-forth against a dead tree. d. Two sticks (one being the bow, the other the drill) are struck to create a spark.* 9-9. It occurs to you that you can also use the fire as a distress signal. When signaling with fire, how do you form the international distress signal? a. 2 fires b. 4 fires in a square c. 4 fires in a cross d. 3 fires in a line* 9-10. You are very thirsty. You go to a nearby stream and collect some water in the small metal cup you have in your backpack. How long should you boil the water? a. 15 minutes b. A few seconds c. 1 minute d. Depends on the altitude* 9-11. You are very hungry, so you decide to eat what appear to be edible berries. When performing the Universal Edibility Test what should you do? a. Do not eat for 2 hours before the test. b. If the plant stings your lip, confirm the sting by holding it under your tongue for 15 minutes. c. If nothing bad has happened 2 hours after digestion, eat half a cup of the plant and wait again. d. Separate the plant into its basic components and eat each component one at a time.* 9-12. Next, you decide to build a shelter for the evening. In selecting a site, what do you not have to consider? a. It must contain material to make the type of shelter you need. b. It must be free from insects, reptiles, and poisonous plants. c. It must be large enough and level enough for you to lie down comfortably. d. It must be on a hill so you can signal rescuers and keep an eye on your surroundings.* 9-13. In the shelter that you built, you notice a spider. You heard from a fellow hiker that black widow spiders populate the area. How do you identify a black widow spider? a. Its head and abdomen are black; its thorax is red. b. It is attracted to light. c. It runs away from light. d. It is a dark with a red or orange marking on the female's abdomen. * 9-14. After getting some sleep, you notice that the night sky has cleared, and so you decide to try and find your way back to base camp. You believe you can use the North Star for navigation. How do you locate the North Star? a. Hold your right hand up as far as you can and look between your index and middle fingers. b. Find Sirius and look 60 degrees above it and to the right. c. Look for the Big Dipper and follow the line created by its cup end. * d. Follow the line of Orion's belt. 9-15. You come across a fast-moving stream. What is the best way to cross it? a. Find a spot downstream from a sandbar, as the water will be calmer. b. Build a bridge. c. Find a rocky area, as the water will be shallow and you will have hand- and footholds. d. Find a level stretch where it breaks into a few channels. * 9-16. After walking for about an hour, you feel several spiders in your pants. You don’t feel any pain, but you realize some spider bites are painless. Which of these spider bites is painless? a. Black Widow b. Brown Recluse * c. Wolf Spider d. Harvestman (Daddy Longlegs) 9-17. You decide to eat some insects. Which insects should you avoid? a. Adults that sting or bite b. Caterpillars and insects that have a pungent odor c. Hairy or brightly colored one d. All the above* *Correct answer Group Task Break into groups of five to six people. Now imagine that your whole group is lost. Answer each question as a group, employing a consensus approach to reach each decision. Once the group comes to an agreement, write the decision down on the same sheet of paper that you used for your individual answers. You will have approximately 20 minutes for the group task. Scoring Your Answers Your instructor will provide you with the correct answers that are based on expert judgments in these situations (www.wilderness-survival.net). Once you have received the answers, calculate: (A) your individual score; (B) your group’s score; (C) the average individual score in the group; and (D) the best individual score in the group. Write these down, and consult with your group to ensure that these scores are accurate. (A) Your individual score (B) Your group’s score (C) Average individual score in group (D) Best individual score in group Discussion Questions 9-18. How did your group perform (B) perform relative to yourself (A)? 9-19. How did your group perform (B) perform relative to the average individual score in the group (C)? 9-20. How did your group perform (B) perform relative to the best individual score in the group (D)? 9-21. Compare your results with those of other groups. Did some groups do a better job of outperforming individuals than others? 9-22. What do these results tell you about the effectiveness of group decision making? 9-23. What can groups do to make group decision making more effective? 9-24. What circumstances might cause a group to perform worse than its best individual? Teaching Notes When students have finished, select a group to share the results of their discussion. Ask other groups how their results compare or contrast to that group’s. This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as Black Board 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Ethical Dilemma It’s Obvious, They’re Chinese The antithesis of social loafing was brought into sharp focus back in 2009 when Shanghai became the first Chinese region to enter the Programme for International Student Assessment. (PISA). In its first entry year, Shanghai, by a considerable margin came top in mathematics, science and reading. PISA looks at the attainments of 15 year olds and by 2012 (the latest data set available), Shanghai had cemented their position as the top performing student groups. This is an incredible achievement for a region of just 23.9 million people. Preconceived visions of Chinese students suggest they learn from rote, but in fact this is not the case. In terms of memorization, the Shanghai students performed less well than the UK. So what is it that sets the Shanghai students apart from most of the rest of the world? A typical Chinese 15 year old has eight forty-minute classes each day. Despite this heavy workload, the teacher-led sessions, according to observers, are performed with total pupil concentration even though classes can be up to 60 in strength. Age old Chinese folktales recount the successes of those who show diligence and hard work. Concepts such as being gifted or talented have far less currency than simply working hard. For generations, Chinese students have worked hard to achieve good grades in their gaokao examinations. These are the key to university entrance. The combination of hard work and high stake examinations mean that an average Chinese 15 year old does 3 hours of homework every night. There is no time for social loafing, individual and cultural motivators drive the students forward. Source: National Centre for Education Statistics, Program for International Student Assessment, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/index.asp, accessed January 23, 2014; “Shanghai Population 2015,” WPR, http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/shanghai-population/. Questions 9-25. Why does social loafing cause ethical dilemmas? What is it about social loafing that makes it difficult to cope with on a one-to-one basis of one your colleagues does this? Answer: Social loafing is overlooked in many cases as others often pick up the slack. This means that the management may not notice that it is happening. On a day-to-day basis, this can cause resentment between colleagues and create rifts. Students may suggest several different sets of consequences and remedies. 9-26. Social loafing is exposed in performance appraisals and other methods of assessing productivity and output. How should it be handled when it is exposed? Answer: When social loafing is exposed in performance appraisals or other methods of assessing productivity and output, it should be addressed promptly and effectively. Here are some strategies for handling social loafing: 1. Clear Expectations: Ensure that all team members have a clear understanding of their roles, responsibilities, and performance expectations. Clearly defined goals and objectives help minimize ambiguity and hold individuals accountable for their contributions. 2. Individual Accountability: Hold individuals accountable for their performance by establishing measurable targets and evaluating their contributions based on objective criteria. Recognize and reward individual efforts to motivate employees and discourage social loafing. 3. Performance Feedback: Provide regular feedback to team members on their performance, highlighting areas of strength and areas needing improvement. Constructive feedback helps individuals understand their impact on the team and encourages them to take ownership of their work. 4. Encourage Collaboration: Foster a culture of collaboration and teamwork where individuals feel valued and motivated to contribute their best efforts. Encourage open communication, idea-sharing, and mutual support among team members to reduce the likelihood of social loafing. 5. Peer Evaluation: Implement peer evaluation systems where team members provide feedback on each other's performance. Peer evaluations can help identify instances of social loafing and promote accountability within the team. 6. Address Root Causes: Investigate the underlying reasons for social loafing, such as lack of motivation, poor communication, or mismatched skills. Addressing these root causes can help mitigate social loafing and improve overall team effectiveness. 7. Training and Development: Provide training and development opportunities to enhance team members' skills, knowledge, and motivation. Investing in employee development improves job satisfaction and performance, reducing the likelihood of social loafing. 8. Leadership Support: Leadership plays a crucial role in addressing social loafing by setting a positive example, fostering a supportive work environment, and holding individuals accountable for their actions. Leaders should actively monitor team dynamics and intervene when necessary to address instances of social loafing. By implementing these strategies, organizations can effectively address social loafing and promote a culture of accountability, collaboration, and high performance within teams. 9-27. Most Chinese 15-year-olds spurn watching television, using social media, and console gaming. On the other hand, many of the students do not excel in creative thinking or problem-solving. To what extent might this be an issue compared to other societies that might focus on these aspects? Answer: Racial and culture stereotyping suggests that the Chinese work very hard, but sometimes lack the abilities to problem-solve and be creative. Obviously, this is incorrect as China has a vibrant art and literary tradition and have not found to be lacking when facing difficult decisions. China is moving away from its reliance on mass production and low costs. In this endeavor, the Chinese need problem-solvers and creative people. These individuals will always tend to emerge regardless of their conformity to the educational system. Case Incident 1 The Calamities of Consensus When it is time for groups to reach a decision, many turn to consensus. Consensus, a situation of agreement, seems like a good idea. To achieve consensus, groups must cooperate and collaborate, which ultimately will produce higher levels of camaraderie and trust. In addition, if everyone agrees, then the prevailing wisdom is that everyone will be more committed to the decision. However, there are times when the need for consensus can be detrimental to group functioning. Consider the recent “fiscal cliff” faced by the U.S. government toward the end of 2012. The White House and Congress needed to reach a deal that would reduce the swelling budget deficit. However, many Republicans and Democrats stuck to their party lines, refusing to compromise. Many viewed the end product that achieved consensus as a less than optimal solution. The public gave Congress an approval rating of only 13 percent, expressing frustration with the lack of compromise, but the group may not have been able to function well partly because of the need for consensus. If consensus is reached, does that mean the decision is the right one? Critics of consensus-based methods argue that any decisions that are ultimately reached are inferior to decisions using other methods such as voting or having team members provide input to their leader, who then makes the final decision. Critics also argue that, because of pressures to conform, groupthink is much more likely, and decisions reached through consensus are simply those that are disliked the least by everyone. Sources: D. Leonhardt, “When the Crowd Isn’t Wise,” The New York Times (July 8, 2012), p. SR BW 4; and K. Jensen, “Consensus Is Poison! Who’s With Me?” Forbes (May 20, 2013), downloaded on May 30, 2013, from www.forbes.com. Questions 9-28. Is consensus a good way for groups to make decisions? Why or why not? Answer: Whether consensus is a good way for groups to make decisions depends on various factors and the context in which the decision-making process occurs. Pros of Consensus: 1. Collaboration and Cooperation: Consensus-based decision-making fosters collaboration and cooperation among group members. It encourages open dialogue and active participation, leading to a more inclusive decision-making process. 2. Higher Levels of Camaraderie and Trust: When group members work together to reach consensus, it can strengthen camaraderie and build trust within the group. This sense of unity and mutual understanding can enhance teamwork and group cohesion. 3. Increased Commitment to the Decision: Since everyone agrees on the decision, there is a higher likelihood of commitment and buy-in from all members. This can lead to greater implementation success as individuals are more likely to support and work towards the agreed-upon goals. Cons of Consensus: 1. Potential for Compromise: In some cases, the need to achieve consensus may lead to compromised decisions that do not fully address the underlying issues or concerns. This can result in suboptimal outcomes that fail to satisfy the needs of all stakeholders. 2. Risk of Groupthink: Consensus-based decision-making may increase the risk of groupthink, where individuals prioritize conformity and unanimity over critical thinking and independent judgment. This can stifle dissenting opinions and hinder creative problem-solving. 3. Time-Consuming Process: Consensus-building can be a time-consuming process, especially when dealing with complex or contentious issues. It may require extensive discussion and negotiation to reach agreement, potentially delaying decision implementation. Overall, while consensus can promote collaboration, trust, and commitment within groups, it may not always be the most efficient or effective decision-making approach. The suitability of consensus depends on factors such as the nature of the decision, the dynamics of the group, and the urgency of the situation. In some cases, alternative decision-making methods, such as voting or expert input, may be more appropriate for achieving optimal outcomes. 9-29. Can you think of a time where a group of which you were a part relied on consensus? How do you think the decision turned out? Answer: Yes, I can recall a time when I was part of a group that relied on consensus for decision-making. It was during a project planning meeting in my previous workplace. Our team needed to finalize the project timeline and allocate responsibilities among team members. Initially, there were differing opinions on the timeline and task assignments. Some team members favored a more aggressive timeline to meet client expectations, while others advocated for a more conservative approach to ensure quality and minimize risks. To reach a consensus, we engaged in open discussions, allowing each member to express their concerns and preferences. We considered various factors, such as resource availability, project complexity, and potential obstacles. Through constructive dialogue and compromise, we were able to find common ground and agree on a timeline that balanced both the client's needs and project feasibility. Similarly, we collaboratively allocated tasks based on individual strengths, expertise, and availability. Although it took some time to reach consensus, the decision-making process was inclusive and transparent, fostering a sense of ownership and commitment among team members. In the end, the decision turned out to be successful. The project was completed within the agreed timeline, and each team member fulfilled their responsibilities effectively. By relying on consensus, we were able to leverage the collective wisdom and expertise of the group, leading to a more cohesive and productive project outcome. 9-30. Martin Luther King Jr. once proclaimed, “A genuine leader is not a seeker of consensus but a modeler of consensus.” What do you think he meant by that statement? Do you agree with it? Why or why not? Answer: Martin Luther King Jr.'s statement, "A genuine leader is not a seeker of consensus but a modeler of consensus," encapsulates a profound insight into leadership dynamics. At its core, King is suggesting that true leadership isn't merely about chasing after popular opinion or seeking agreement from all parties involved. Instead, it's about embodying the values, principles, and vision that inspire others to come together and find common ground. To unpack this statement further, let's break it down: 1. Not a seeker of consensus: This implies that a genuine leader doesn't prioritize simply appeasing everyone or conforming to the prevailing views. Seeking consensus at all costs can sometimes lead to compromises that dilute the essence of a leader's mission or vision. It might involve making decisions solely based on what's popular or acceptable rather than what's right or necessary. 2. Modeler of consensus: Instead of seeking consensus, a genuine leader shapes it. By leading by example, demonstrating integrity, empathy, and a clear sense of purpose, they inspire others to rally around shared goals. They don't impose their will on others but rather create an environment where diverse perspectives are valued and where people are motivated to work together towards a common objective. In essence, King is advocating for a form of leadership that is rooted in authenticity, moral courage, and the ability to bridge divides. True leaders don't just follow the crowd; they lead it. They don't just react to circumstances; they shape them. They don't just seek consensus; they model it through their actions and their commitment to justice, equality, and progress. As for whether I agree with this statement, I wholeheartedly do. It emphasizes the importance of principled leadership and the power of moral persuasion in effecting meaningful change. It's not always easy to stand firm in one's convictions or to navigate through conflicting viewpoints, but history has shown us time and again that the most impactful leaders are those who stay true to their values while also being able to bring people together for a greater cause. Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as Black Board 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Case Incident 2 Intragroup Trust and Survival When 10 British Army soldiers on a 10-day training exercise descended into Low’s Gully, a narrow chasm that cuts through Mt. Kinabalu in Borneo, each knew “the golden rule for such expeditions—never split up.” Yet, the fittest three struggled out of the jungle with a concussion, malaria, and infected wounds 19 days later; two more terribly ill soldiers found a village the next day; and the remaining five emaciated and injured men were rescued from a cave by a helicopter on day 33. What happened? On a surface level, the near-tragic fracturing of the group began with a logical division of labor, according to the training’s initiators, Lieutenant Colonel Neill and Major Foster: Because the group would be one of mixed abilities, and the young British and NCOs [non-commissioned officers]were likely to be fitter and more experienced than the Hong Kong soldiers, the team would work in two halves on the harder phases of the descent. The British, taking advantage of Mayfield’s expertise (in rock climbing), would set up ropes on the difficult sections, while he [Neill] and Foster would concentrate on bringing the Hong Kong soldiers down. Every now and then the recce (reconnaissance)party would report back, and the expedition would go on down in one unit until another reconnaissance party became necessary. The men reported that from then on, perilous climbing conditions, debilitating sickness, and monsoon rains permanently divided the group. A review board found differently ,blaming Neill’s and Foster’s leadership and their decision to take some less-experienced soldiers on the exercise. No rulings were made about the near-catastrophic decisions to divide the group, but closer inquiries show that this temporary workgroup of diverse members who were not previously acquainted started out with a high level of intra group trust that dissolved over time. The resulting fault lines, based on members’ similarities and difference sand the establishment of ad hoc leaders, may have been inevitable. Initially, all group members shared the common ground of soldier training, clear roles, and volunteer commitment to the mission. When the leaders ignored the soldiers’ concerns about the severity of conditions, lack of preparation, and low level of communication, however, trust issues divided the group into subgroups. The initial reconnaissance party established common ground and trust that allowed them to complete the mission and reach safety, even though they divided yet again. Meanwhile, the main group that stayed with the leaders in the cave under conditions of active distrust fractured further. We will never know whether it would have been better to keep the group together. However, we do know that this small group of soldiers trained to stay together for survival fractured into at least four subgroups because they didn’t trust their leaders or their group, endangering all their lives. Sources: M. A. Korsgaard, H. H. Brower, and S. W. Lester, “It Isn’t Always Mutual: A Critical Review of Dyadic Trust,” Journal of Management 41, no. 1 (2014): 47–70; R. L. Priem and P. C. Nystrom, “Exploring the Dynamics of Workgroup Fracture: Common Ground, Trust-with-Trepidation, and Warranted Distrust,” Journal of Management 40, no. 3 (2014): 764–95; and “The Call of Malaysia’s ‘Conquerable’ Mount Kinabalu,” BBC, June 5, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33020356. Questions 9-31.The review board blamed Neill and Foster. Was this a fair conclusion? Where should blame be apportioned under the circumstances? Answer: In the scenario described, the review board's conclusion blaming Lieutenant Colonel Neill and Major Foster for the near-tragic outcome seems to be a fair one based on the information provided. Here's why: 1. Leadership Responsibility: Neill and Foster were in leadership positions responsible for the welfare and safety of the soldiers under their command. They made the decision to divide the group based on perceived differences in abilities, without adequately considering the risks involved or ensuring proper communication and coordination among the subgroups. 2. Ignoring Concerns: The leaders disregarded the soldiers' concerns about the severity of conditions, lack of preparation, and insufficient communication. Trust is foundational in any group dynamic, especially in high-stakes situations like survival scenarios. By dismissing the soldiers' valid concerns, Neill and Foster eroded trust and cohesion within the group. 3. Division of the Group: The decision to divide the group, coupled with the lack of trust and communication, resulted in the fracturing of the team into subgroups. This fragmentation further exacerbated the perilous situation, making it more difficult for the soldiers to navigate the challenges they faced and increasing the risk to their lives. 4. Accountability for Decision-Making: As leaders, Neill and Foster ultimately bore the responsibility for the decisions they made and the consequences that followed. While the review board did not specifically address the decision to divide the group, it rightfully held the leaders accountable for their leadership and management of the situation. In conclusion, the blame can be reasonably apportioned to Neill and Foster for their leadership failures, lack of effective communication, and decision-making that led to the fracturing of the group and endangered the lives of the soldiers. Effective leadership in such situations requires foresight, trust-building, clear communication, and accountability, all of which were lacking in this case. 9-32. Discuss the group properties presented in this chapter and use them to evaluate the failure of this group. Answer: The failure of the group described in the scenario can be analyzed through the lens of various group properties presented in relevant literature. Here's an evaluation using some of these properties: 1. Group Cohesion: Cohesion refers to the degree of unity, solidarity, and commitment among group members. Initially, the group displayed cohesion as they embarked on the training exercise with a shared purpose and commitment to the mission. However, this cohesion disintegrated over time due to the lack of trust and communication between leaders and subordinates, leading to the fracturing of the group into subgroups. This lack of cohesion contributed to the failure to maintain unity and coordination essential for survival. 2. Leadership: Effective leadership is crucial for guiding and managing group dynamics. In this case, leadership played a significant role in the group's failure. Lieutenant Colonel Neill and Major Foster failed to address the concerns of the soldiers, ignored warnings about the severity of conditions, and made decisions that ultimately led to the division of the group. Their leadership approach lacked transparency, communication, and consideration for the well-being of all members, resulting in distrust and disunity within the group. 3. Trust: Trust is essential for fostering cooperation, collaboration, and mutual reliance within a group. Initially, the group exhibited a high level of trust, as evidenced by their shared commitment to the mission and reliance on one another. However, this trust eroded over time due to the leaders' disregard for soldiers' concerns and the failure to maintain open communication channels. As trust diminished, the group fragmented further, exacerbating the challenges they faced and endangering their lives. 4. Communication: Effective communication is vital for sharing information, clarifying expectations, and resolving conflicts within a group. In this case, communication breakdowns contributed significantly to the group's failure. The leaders failed to communicate adequately with the soldiers, ignoring their concerns and failing to provide essential information about the severity of conditions. This lack of communication fostered distrust and misunderstanding within the group, further fueling its fragmentation. 5. Group Norms: Norms are the shared rules, expectations, and standards of behavior within a group. While the group initially adhered to the norm of not splitting up, this norm was disregarded by the leaders' decision to divide the group based on perceived differences in abilities. This deviation from the established norm contributed to confusion, conflict, and ultimately, the failure of the group to maintain cohesion and unity. Overall, the failure of the group can be attributed to a combination of leadership failures, breakdowns in communication, erosion of trust, and deviation from established norms. These group properties interacted to create a dysfunctional group dynamic that ultimately endangered the lives of its members. 9-33. When the exercise was designed, Neill created a buddy system based on similarity of soldiers’ backgrounds (rank, unit, age, fitness, skills level).The first group out of the jungle were assigned buddies and one other: two lance corporals and one corporal from the same unit (regular army);ages 24–26 with good fitness levels; all top roping and abseiling (TR&A) instructors. The second group out were assigned buddies: a sergeant and a lance corporal from the same unit (elite regular army); ages 25 and 37; good fitness levels; both with Commando Brigade skills. The group left in the cave split into: a lieutenant colonel and a major(buddies); one from the regular army and one from the part time territorial army; ages 46 and 54;fair fitness level; one TR&A and one ski instructor. The second faction was the three from the Hong Kong unit—a lance corporal and two privates, all from the Hong Kong unit; ages 24–32; fair to good fitness levels; one with jungle training and two novices. Would you have set up the buddy system Neill did? Why or why not, and if not, what would you have changed? Answer: Setting up a buddy system based solely on similarity of soldiers' backgrounds, as Neill did, may not have been the most effective approach considering the diverse nature of the group and the challenging circumstances of the training exercise. While similarity in certain aspects such as rank, unit, age, fitness, and skills level can foster rapport and understanding between buddies, it can also limit the diversity of perspectives and experiences within the buddy pairs, potentially hindering adaptability and resilience in unpredictable situations. Instead, I would have opted for a more balanced approach to the buddy system that considers both similarities and complementary differences among soldiers. Here's why: 1. Diversity of Skills and Experiences: In a challenging and dynamic environment like the one described in the scenario, diversity in skills and experiences can be invaluable. Pairing soldiers with complementary skills and experiences can enhance problem-solving abilities, resourcefulness, and adaptability. For example, pairing soldiers with expertise in different areas such as rock climbing, jungle survival, and medical training can provide a broader range of capabilities within each buddy pair. 2. Resilience and Adaptability: By diversifying buddy pairs, soldiers are better equipped to adapt to a variety of situations and challenges. Exposure to different perspectives and approaches fosters creativity and resilience, enabling soldiers to draw upon a wider range of resources and strategies to overcome obstacles. 3. Support and Collaboration: While similarity in certain aspects can facilitate camaraderie and mutual understanding, diversity in backgrounds can also promote collaboration and mutual support. Pairing soldiers with different backgrounds encourages learning from one another, sharing expertise, and fostering a culture of teamwork and cooperation. In summary, while Neill's buddy system based on similarity of soldiers' backgrounds may have had some benefits in terms of familiarity and rapport, a more balanced approach that considers both similarities and complementary differences would likely have been more effective in promoting adaptability, resilience, and collaboration among soldiers in the challenging conditions of the training exercise. Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as Black Board 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. My Management Lab Go to mymanagementlab.com for Auto-graded writing questions as well as the following Assisted-graded writing questions: 9-34. Considering Case Incident 1, what are some ways groups can improve the effectiveness of consensus methods to make decisions? Answer: To enhance the effectiveness of consensus methods in decision-making, groups can implement several strategies: 1. Clear Objectives: Ensure that the group has a clear understanding of the decision-making objectives and the desired outcome. Clearly defining the problem or issue at hand helps focus discussions and facilitates consensus-building around common goals. 2. Active Participation: Encourage active participation from all group members by creating a supportive and inclusive environment where everyone feels comfortable expressing their opinions and concerns. Actively seeking input from diverse perspectives can lead to more comprehensive discussions and better-informed decisions. 3. Effective Communication: Foster open and transparent communication channels within the group. Encourage members to listen actively, respect differing viewpoints, and communicate their ideas clearly and respectfully. Effective communication helps prevent misunderstandings and conflicts that can impede consensus-building. 4. Collaborative Problem-Solving: Emphasize collaborative problem-solving approaches that encourage brainstorming, idea generation, and exploration of alternatives. Encourage creativity and innovation by exploring a wide range of potential solutions before reaching a consensus. 5. Compromise and Flexibility: Recognize that consensus doesn't always mean unanimous agreement. Encourage members to be flexible and willing to compromise on certain aspects of the decision while maintaining alignment with overarching goals and priorities. Being open to alternative perspectives and adapting to new information can help achieve consensus more effectively. 6. Facilitated Discussions: Consider appointing a neutral facilitator to guide the consensus-building process. A facilitator can help manage discussions, keep the group focused, mediate conflicts, and ensure that all voices are heard. Facilitated discussions can enhance efficiency and effectiveness in reaching consensus. 7. Decision-Making Tools: Utilize decision-making tools and techniques, such as SWOT analysis, decision matrices, or multi-voting, to structure discussions and evaluate options systematically. These tools can provide a framework for organizing information, weighing trade-offs, and reaching consensus based on objective criteria. 8. Regular Feedback and Evaluation: Seek feedback from group members on the consensus-building process and decision outcomes. Reflect on past experiences, identify areas for improvement, and implement adjustments accordingly. Continuous evaluation and refinement of consensus methods contribute to ongoing improvement in decision-making effectiveness. By implementing these strategies, groups can enhance the effectiveness of consensus methods and make more informed and collaborative decisions that reflect the collective wisdom and insights of all members. 9-35. After reading Case Incident 2, do you feel subgroups are good or bad? Why or why not? What might be the alternative? Answer: Subgroups within a larger group can have both positive and negative implications, depending on how they form and function. Here's a breakdown of the potential pros and cons of subgroups, followed by an exploration of alternatives: Pros of Subgroups: 1. Increased Cohesion: Subgroups can foster a sense of belonging and camaraderie among members who share common interests, backgrounds, or objectives. This cohesion can enhance collaboration, communication, and mutual support within the subgroup. 2. Specialization and Expertise: Subgroups may allow members to specialize in specific areas or tasks, leveraging their unique skills, knowledge, and expertise to contribute more effectively to the overall group's goals. This specialization can lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness in achieving objectives. 3. Flexibility and Adaptability: Subgroups can provide a level of flexibility and adaptability within the larger group, allowing members to address diverse needs, challenges, or opportunities more efficiently. Different subgroups can focus on different aspects of a project or problem, enabling the group as a whole to respond more effectively to changing circumstances. Cons of Subgroups: 1. Fragmentation and Division: Subgroups have the potential to fragment the larger group, leading to division, competition, or conflicts of interest. When subgroups form along lines of similarity or difference, they may inadvertently create barriers to communication, collaboration, and cohesion within the overall group. 2. Communication Breakdowns: Subgroups may develop their own communication channels and norms, leading to communication breakdowns or misunderstandings between subgroups and with the larger group. This lack of integration and coordination can hinder effective decision-making and problem-solving across the entire group. 3. Loss of Perspective: Subgroups may become too focused on their own interests or objectives, potentially overlooking the broader goals or priorities of the larger group. This narrow focus can lead to tunnel vision, missed opportunities, or suboptimal outcomes for the group as a whole. Alternatives to Subgroups: 1. Cross-Functional Teams: Rather than forming subgroups based on similarity or specialization, consider organizing the group into cross-functional teams composed of members with diverse skills, backgrounds, and perspectives. Cross-functional teams promote collaboration, innovation, and holistic problem-solving by bringing together a range of expertise and viewpoints. 2. Rotating Leadership Roles: Rotate leadership roles and responsibilities within the group to prevent the formation of entrenched subgroups and promote shared ownership of group objectives. By regularly rotating leadership positions, all members have the opportunity to contribute their ideas, skills, and leadership abilities to the group's success. 3. Regular Group Reflection and Evaluation: Establish regular opportunities for the group to reflect on its dynamics, processes, and outcomes. Encourage open dialogue and feedback sharing to identify any emerging subgroups, communication breakdowns, or other challenges that may be hindering group effectiveness. Use this feedback to adjust group norms, processes, or structures as needed to promote cohesion and collaboration. In conclusion, while subgroups can offer benefits such as increased cohesion and specialization, they also pose risks such as fragmentation and communication breakdowns. By exploring alternative approaches such as cross-functional teams, rotating leadership roles, and regular group reflection, groups can mitigate these risks and foster a more cohesive, collaborative, and effective working environment. 9-36. My Management Lab Only – comprehensive writing assignment for this chapter. Answer: Introduction: Group behavior is a cornerstone of organizational dynamics, influencing productivity, innovation, and overall performance. Understanding the foundations of group behavior is essential for leaders and managers to foster collaboration, cohesion, and high-performance teams within their organizations. This comprehensive writing assignment explores key concepts, theories, and strategies related to group behavior, offering insights into how organizations can enhance group effectiveness. 1. Dynamics of Group Formation: • Discuss the stages of group formation, including forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. • Explore the factors influencing group cohesion and the development of group norms. • Highlight the importance of role clarity, trust, and communication in facilitating smooth group formation. 2. Group Structure and Composition: • Examine the impact of group size, diversity, and composition on group dynamics and effectiveness. • Discuss the advantages and challenges associated with homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. • Explore strategies for optimizing group composition to leverage diversity and foster inclusivity. 3. Leadership and Influence in Groups: • Analyze different leadership styles and their effects on group behavior, such as autocratic, democratic, and transformational leadership. • Discuss the role of power, influence, and social dynamics in shaping leadership within groups. • Highlight the importance of servant leadership and empowering leadership practices in promoting group effectiveness. 4. Communication and Decision Making: • Explore the role of communication in facilitating information sharing, collaboration, and conflict resolution within groups. • Discuss barriers to effective communication in groups and strategies for overcoming them. • Examine decision-making processes within groups, including consensus-building, voting, and groupthink. 5. Conflict Management and Resolution: • Analyze the sources and types of conflict that arise within groups, such as task-related, interpersonal, and role conflict. • Discuss conflict resolution strategies, including negotiation, mediation, and compromise. • Highlight the importance of constructive conflict management in promoting creativity, innovation, and growth within groups. 6. Group Dynamics in Virtual and Remote Settings: • Explore the unique challenges and opportunities of group behavior in virtual and remote work environments. • Discuss strategies for building trust, communication, and collaboration in virtual teams. • Examine the role of technology in facilitating group interaction and productivity. 7. Enhancing Group Effectiveness: • Summarize key principles and best practices for enhancing group effectiveness based on the foundations of group behavior. • Discuss the role of organizational culture, structure, and support systems in promoting a conducive environment for high-performance teams. • Provide actionable recommendations for leaders and managers to apply in their organizations to optimize group dynamics and achieve superior results. Conclusion: Understanding the foundations of group behavior is essential for creating cohesive, high-performing teams within organizations. By recognizing the dynamics of group formation, structure, leadership, communication, conflict management, and virtual collaboration, organizations can cultivate an environment that fosters creativity, innovation, and success. By applying the principles and strategies outlined in this comprehensive writing assignment, leaders and managers can enhance group effectiveness and drive organizational performance forward in today's dynamic and competitive landscape. Instructor’s Choice The Team Breaks the Curse Perhaps there has not been a stronger or longer rivalry than the one between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. Until the fateful series in 2004, many Boston Red Sox fans would ask, “How can the Boston Red Sox ever beat the New York Yankees and win a World Series?” John W. Henry, the 54-year-old principal owner of the Boston Red Sox, thinks he finally may have the answer—earn more money and build a better team. Sounds simple, but in the realities of the big leagues and the astronomical salaries commanded by players, simple is not always easy. However, Mr. Henry has a plan. Step One: lose the loser image and the Curse of the Bambino (Babe Ruth). Until 2004, the Red Sox had not won a World Series since they sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees almost a century ago. Step Two: build a strong team where everyone has a distinct role to play and plays that role very well. Mr. Henry has brought in a number of talented players from pitchers to hitters that are expected to be All-Stars at their positions. Step Three: increase revenues to fund the upgraded team. To date, the New York Yankees produce around $340 million in revenues to the Boston Red Sox’s $230 million. Step Four: expand the Red Sox Inc. enterprises so revenues will flow from other sources other than just selling seats. Since all Red Sox games are sold out (and have one of the highest ticket prices in the league), the organization was limited in revenue opportunities. Step Five: do all of the above. This formula helped break the curse and seal a World Series victory! •Using a search engine of your own choosing, investigate the business and management practices of the Boston Red Sox baseball organization (see www.redsox.com). List what you perceive to be the organizational characteristics of the Red Sox. •Characterize groups that are found in the organization (e.g., players, etc.). From your search, what can you say about group norms, roles, rules, compliance, and deviance in this organization? •Is this a dysfunctional team in your opinion? Support your opinion. Are there any socialization experiences that could help this team to accomplish its goals and objectives? Explain. Instructor Discussion This is an unusual assignment in that it asks students to examine an extremely successful organization that has yet to reach its paramount goals and has been labeled a “loser” because of its intense rivalry with the New York Yankees. Students will find a wealth of information on the team’s website. Additional materials on the business dealings of the Red Sox and various roles played by players and management alike can be found by reviewing “Breaking the Curse,” by William C. Symonds in Business Week, April 26, 2004, pp. 75–83. Like other examples in the chapter, the Red Sox present a good example of group and team behavior. Illustrations of success and failure (see History section on the website) provide examples of how the team has fared over the years and the influence of players and managers on the equation. For additional resource information, see industry-specific publications such as Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal (www.sportsbusinessjournal.com). Teaching Notes This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as Black Board 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information. Exploring OB Topics on the Web
1. Read the following perspectives on groupthink and brainstorming, and then discuss whether you feel they have a place in today’s organizations. Do people work better creatively when teamed up, or does the danger of groupthink lurk? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-the-new-groupthink.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lehrer 2. Peer pressure can be a positive thing; it is really just a way to communicate group norms. To learn more about how to use positive peer pressure to prevent binge drinking on campus visit http://www.csmonitor.com/1997/1027/102797.feat.learning.2.html. 3. Brainstorming is a group technique to encourage the development of creative alternatives. Now that we know what it is, how do we do it? What would you do if you were called upon to lead a brainstorming session? Visit this U.K. website for an overview on how to conduct a brainstorming session at http://www.brainstorming.co.uk/tutorials/preparingforbrainstorming.html. You might also be interested in visiting the home page of this same website found at http://www.brainstorming.co.uk/ contents.html, where you will find lots of creativity exercises, puzzles, free training, articles, and more. Make a list of the five most important things you must do to prepare for a brainstorming session and
bring it to class. What is the link between social loafing and group cohesiveness? Does one enhance or detract from the other? Write a two-page paper on the topic. Conduct an Internet search with these two terms. Solution Manual for Organizational Behavior Timothy A. Judge Stephen P. Robbins 9781292146300, 9780133507645, 9780136124016
Download
Close
Close
