Preview Extract
CHAPTER9 Foundations of Group Behavior LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, students should be able to: Distinguish between the different types of groups. Describe the punctuated-equilibrium model of group development. Show how role requirements change in different situations. Demonstrate how norms exert influence on an individual’s behavior. Show how status and size differences affect group performance. Describe how issues of cohesiveness and diversity can be integrated for group effectiveness. Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making. INSTRUCTOR RESOURCES Instructors may wish to use the following resources when presenting this chapter. Text Exercises Myth or Science?: “Gossip and Exclusion Are Toxic for Groups” An Ethical Choice: Using Peer Pressure as an Influence Tactic Personal Inventory Assessment: Communicating Supportively Career Objectives: Can I Fudge the Numbers and Not Take the Blame? Point/Counterpoint: People Are More Creative When They Work Alone Questions for Review Experiential Exercise: Surviving the Wild: Join a Group or Go it Alone? Ethical Dilemma: Is Social Loafing Unethical? Text Cases Case Incident 1: The Calamities of Consensus Case Incident 2: Intragroup Trust and Survival Instructor’s Choice This section presents an exercise that is NOT found in the student's textbook. Instructor's Choice reinforces the text's emphasis through various activities. Some Instructor's Choice activities are centered on debates, group exercises, Internet research, and student experiences. Some can be used in class in their entirety, while others require some additional work on the student's part. The course instructor may choose to use these at anytime throughout the class—some may be more effective as icebreakers, while some may be used to pull together various concepts covered in the chapter. Web Exercises At the end of each chapter of this Instructor’s Manual, you will find suggested exercises and ideas for researching OB topics on the Internet. The exercises “Exploring OB Topics on the Web” are set up so that you can simply photocopy the pages, distribute them to your class, and make assignments accordingly. You may want to assign the exercises as an out-of-class activity or as lab activities with your class. Summary and Implications for Managers We can draw several implications from our discussion of groups. First, norms control behavior by establishing standards of right and wrong. Second, status inequities create frustration and can adversely influence productivity and willingness to remain with an organization. Third, the impact of size on a group’s performance depends on the type of task. Fourth, cohesiveness may influence a group’s level of productivity, depending on the group’s performance-related norms. Fifth, 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. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced tension and job dissatisfaction. Specific implications for managers are below: Recognize that groups can dramatically affect individual behavior in organizations, to either positive or negative effect. Therefore, pay special attention to roles, norms, and cohesion—to understand how these are operating within a group is to understand how the group is likely to behave. To decrease the possibility of deviant workplace activities, ensure that group norms do not support antisocial behavior. Pay attention to the status aspect of groups. Because lower-status people tend to participate less in group discussions, groups with high status differences are likely to inhibit input from lower-status members and reduce their potential. Use larger groups for fact-finding activities and smaller groups for action-taking tasks. With larger groups, provide measures of individual performance. To increase employee satisfaction, make certain people perceive their job roles accurately. The chapter begins with a vignette describing the story of Courtland Kelley’s attempts to counter the effects of group pressure provide us with a powerful example of the ways groups can (mis)behave. Even though Kelley resisted for all the right ethical reasons, sometimes countering group pressure can mean costly consequences for the individual, as he found. Groups have their place—and their pitfalls. Some groups can exert a powerful positive influence, and others can be tragically negative. The Objectives of this chapter and Chapter 10 are to familiarize you with group and team concepts, provide you with a foundation for understanding how groups and teams work, and show you how to create effective working units. Let’s begin by defining a group. BRIEF CHAPTER OUTLINE Defining and Classifying Groups Definition 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. Formal groups—those defined by the organization’s structure, with designated work assignments establishing tasks. Informal groups—alliances that are neither formally structured nor organizationally determined. Social Identity Our tendency to take personal pride or offense for the accomplishments of a group is the territory of social identity theory. Social identity theory proposes that people have emotional reactions to the failure or success of their group because their self-esteem gets tied into the performance of the group. Social identities help us understand who we are and where we fit in with other people, but they can have a negative side as well. Social identities can even lead people to experience pleasure as a result of seeing another group suffer. We often see these feelings of schadenfreude in the joy fans experience when a hated team loses. Our social identities help us understand who we are and where we fit in with other people, and research indicates they bring us better health and lower levels of depression because we become less likely to attribute negative situations to internal or insurmountable reasons. Within our organizations and workgroups, we can develop many identities through: (1) relational identification, when we connect with others because of our roles, and (2) collective identification, when we connect with the aggregate characteristics of our groups. Ingroups and Outgroups Ingroup favoritism occurs when we see members of our group as better than other people, and people not in our group as all the same. Recent research suggests that people with low openness and/or low agreeableness are more susceptible to ingroup favoritism. Whenever there is an ingroup, there is, by necessity, an outgroup, which is sometimes everyone else, but is usually an identified group known by thein group’s members. When there are ingroups and outgroups, there is often animosity between them. One of the most powerful sources of ingroup–outgroup feelings is the practice of religion, even in the workplace. One global study, for instance, found that when groups became heavily steeped in religious rituals and discussions, they became especially discriminatory toward outgroups and aggressive if the out groups had more resources. Social Identity Threat Ingroups and outgroups pave the way for social identity threat, which is akin to stereotype threat (see Chapter 6). With social identity threat, individuals believe they will be personally negatively evaluated due to their association with a devalued group, and they may lose confidence and performance effectiveness. Stages of Group Development Temporary groups have their own unique sequencing of actions (or inaction): Their first meeting sets the group’s direction. This first phase of group activity is one of inertia. A transition takes place at the end of this phase, which occurs exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time. A transition initiates major changes. A second phase of inertia follows the transition. The group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity. This pattern, called the punctuated-equilibrium model, is shown in Exhibit 9-1. Group Properties: Roles, Norms, Status, Size, and Cohesiveness Introduction Work groups are not unorganized mobs; they have properties that shape members’ behavior and help explain and predict individual behavior within the group, as well as the performance of the group itself. Some of these properties are roles, norms, status, size, cohesiveness, and diversity. Group Property 1: Roles Introduction All group members are actors, each playing a role. We are required to play a number of diverse roles, both on and off our jobs. Role perception: One’s view of how one is supposed to act in a given situation is a role perception. Role expectations: How others believe you should act in a given situation. When role expectations are concentrated into generalized categories, we have role stereotypes. The psychological contract is an unwritten agreement that exists between employees and their employer. If role expectations as implied are not met, expect negative effects on employee performance and satisfaction. Role conflict: When an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations. At the extreme, two or more role expectations are mutually contradictory. Within organizations, most employees are simultaneously in occupations, workgroups, divisions, and demographic groups, and these identities can conflict when the expectations of one clash with the expectations of another. During mergers and acquisitions, employees can be torn between their identities as members of their original organization and of the new parent company. Multinational organizations also have been shown to lead to dual identification—with the local division and with the international organization. Role Play and Assimilation Zimbardo’s prison experiment One of the most illuminating role and identity experiments was done a number of years ago by Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his associates. They created a “prison” in the basement of the Stanford psychology building, hired at , a day, two dozen emotionally stable, physically healthy, law-abiding students who scored “normal average” on extensive personality tests, randomly assigned them the role of either “guard” or “prisoner, ” and established some basic rules. It took little time for the “prisoners” to accept the authority positions of the “guards” and for the mock guards to adjust to their new authority roles. Consistent with social identity theory, the guards came to see the prisoners as a negative out-group, and their comments to researchers showed they had developed stereotypes about the “typical” prisoner personality type. After the guards crushed a rebellion attempt on the second day, the prisoners became increasingly passive. Whatever the guards “dished out, ” the prisoners took. The prisoners actually began to believe and act as if they were inferior and powerless, as the guards constantly reminded them. And every guard, at some time during the simulation, engaged in abusive, authoritative behavior. One said, “I was surprised at myself…I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle, and I kept thinking: ‘I have to watch out for them in case they try something.’” Surprisingly, during the entire experiment—even after days of abuse—not one prisoner said, “Stop this. I’m a student like you. This is just an experiment!” The participants had learned stereotyped conceptions of guard and prisoner roles from the mass media and their own personal experiences in power and powerless relationships at home. This allowed them easily and rapidly to assume roles that were very different from their inherent personalities. Group Properties 2: Norms Introduction All groups have norms—acceptable standards of behavior that are shared by the group’s members that tell members what they ought and ought not to do under certain circumstances. Norms and Emotions A recent study found that, in a task group, individuals’ emotions influenced the group’s emotions and vice versa. Researchers have also found that norms dictated the experience of emotions for the individuals and for the groups – in other words, people grew to interpret their shared emotions in the same way. Norms and Conformity The impact that group pressures for conformity can have on an individual member’s judgment was demonstrated in studies by Solomon Asch and others. (Exhibit 9-2) Do individuals conform to the pressures of all groups to which they belong? Obviously not, because people belong to many groups, and their norms vary and sometimes are contradictory. People conform to their reference groups, in which a person is aware of other members, defines himself or herself as a member or would like to be a member, and feels group members are significant to him or her. The implication, then, is that all groups do not impose equal conformity pressures on their members. Norms and Behavior Experiments conducted between 1924 and 1932 by Elton Mayo at Western Electric at the company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago. The Hawthorne researchers began by examining the relationship between the physical environment and productivity. As a follow-up, the researchers began a second set of experiments in the relay assembly test room at Western Electric. In essence, workers in both the illumination and assembly-test-room experiments were reacting to the increased attention they received. A third study, in the bank wiring observation room, was introduced to ascertain the effect of a sophisticated wage incentive plan. 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. The norms the group established included a number of “don’ts”: Don’t be a rate-buster, turning out too much work. Don’t be a chiseler, turning out too little work. Don’t squeal on any of your peers. How did the group enforce these norms? The methods included sarcasm, name-calling, ridicule, and even punches to the upper arm of any member who violated the group’s norms. Members also ostracized individuals whose behavior was against the group’s interest. Positive Norms and Group Outcomes One goal of every organization with corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives is for its values to hold normative sway over employees. After all, if employees aligned their thinking with positive norms, these norms would become stronger and the probability of positive impact would grow exponentially. We might expect the same outcomes from political correctness (PC) norms. But what is the effect of strong positive norms on group outcomes? The popular thinking is that to increase creativity in groups, for instance, norms should be loosened. However, research on gender-diverse groups indicates that strong PC norms increase group creativity. Positive group norms may well beget positive outcomes, but only if other factors are present, too. As powerful as norms can be, though, not everyone is equally susceptible to positive group norms. Individual personalities factor in, too, as well as the level of a person’s social identity within the group. Negative Norms and Group Outcomes Deviant workplace behavior refers to 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 9-3) Few organizations will admit to creating or condoning conditions that encourage and maintain deviant behaviors. Yet they exist. For one, as we discussed before, a workgroup can become characterized by positive or negative attributes. Second, employees have been reporting an increase in rudeness and disregard toward others by bosses and coworkers in recent years. Workplace incivility, like many other deviant behaviors, has many negative outcomes for the victims. Nearly half of employees who have suffered this incivility say it has led them to think about changing jobs; 12 percent actually quit because of it. Third, research suggests that a lack of sleep, which is often caused by heightened work demands and which hinders a person’s ability to regulate emotions and behaviors, can lead to deviant behavior. Someone who ordinarily wouldn’t engage in deviant behavior might be more likely to do so when working in a group. Norms and Culture Do people in collectivist cultures have different norms than people in individualist cultures? Of course they do. But did you know that our orientation may be changed, even after years of living in one society. Group Property 3: Status, and Group Property 4: Size and Dynamics Group Property 3: Status Status is a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others. What determines status? Status characteristics theory – differences in status characteristics create status hierarchies within groups. Status is derived from one of three sources: The power a person wields over others. A person’s ability to contribute to group’s goals. Individual’s personal characteristics. Status and norms 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. Status and group interaction High-status people tend to be assertive. Status differences inhibit diversity of ideas & creativity. Lower-status members tend to be less active. Status inequity When inequity is perceived, it creates disequilibrium that results in corrective behavior. Hierarchical groups can lead to resentment among those at the lower end of the status continuum. Large differences in status within groups are also associated with poorer individual performance, lower health, and higher intentions to leave the group. Groups generally agree within themselves on status criteria; hence, there is usually high concurrence in group rankings of individuals. Managers who occupy central positions in their social networks are typically seen as higher in status by their subordinates, and this position translates into greater influence over the group’s functioning. Individuals can find themselves in conflicts when they move between groups whose status criteria are different, or when they join groups whose members have heterogeneous backgrounds. When groups are heterogeneous or when heterogeneous groups must be interdependent, status differences may initiate conflict as the group attempts to reconcile the differing hierarchies. Status and stigmatization Studies have shown that people who are stigmatized against, can “infect” others with their stigma. This “stigma by association” effect can result in negative opinions and evaluations of the person affiliated with the stigmatized individual, even if the association is brief and purely coincidental. Group Property 4: Size The size of a group affects the group’s overall behavior, but the effect depends on the dependent variables. Large groups—a dozen or more members—are good for gaining diverse input. Smaller groups—seven members—are better at doing something productive with that input. Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. Social loafing directly challenges the assumption that the productivity of the group as a whole should at least equal the sum of the productivity of the individuals in it, no matter what the group size. Causes of social loafing A belief that others in the group are not carrying their fair share. Social loafing appears to have a Western bias. It’s consistent with individualistic cultures, such as the United States and Canada, that are dominated by self-interest. Preventing social loafing Set group goals, so the group has a common purpose to strive toward. Increase intergroup competition, which again focuses on the shared outcome. Engage in peer evaluation so each person evaluates each other person’s contribution. Select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in groups. If possible, base group rewards in part on each member’s unique contributions. Group Property 5: Cohesiveness, and Group Property 6: Diversity Group Property 5: Cohesiveness (Exhibit 9-4) Groups differ in their cohesiveness– the degree to which members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group. The relationship of cohesiveness and productivity depends on the performance-related norms established by the group. If performance-related norms are high, a cohesive group will be more productive. How to encourage group cohesiveness: Make the group smaller. Encourage agreement with group goals. Increase the time members spend together. Increase the status of the group and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership in the group. Stimulate competition with other groups. Give rewards to the group rather than to individual members. Physically isolate the group. Group Property 6: Diversity The final property of groups we consider is diversity in the group’s membership, the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one another. A great deal of research is being done on how diversity influences group performance. However, culturally and demographically diverse groups may perform better over time—if they can get over their initial conflicts. Surface-level diversity—in observable characteristics such as national origin, race, and gender—alerts people to possible deep-level diversity—in underlying attitudes, values, and opinions. The impact of diversity on groups is mixed. It is difficult to be in a diverse group in the short term. However, if members can weather their differences, over time, diversity may help them be more open-minded and creative and to do better. But even positive effects are unlikely to be especially strong. As one review stated, “The business case (in terms of demonstrable financial results) for diversity remains hard to support based on the extant research.” One possible side effect in diverse teams—especially those that are diverse in terms of surface level characteristics—is fault lines, or perceived divisions that split groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as sex, race, age, work experience, and education. Research on fault lines has shown that splits such as these are generally detrimental to group functioning and performance. Overall, although research on fault lines suggests that diversity in groups is a potential double-edged sword, recent work indicates they can be strategically employed to improve performance. Group Decision Making Groups Versus the Individual Strengths of group decision making Groups generate more complete information and knowledge. They offer increased diversity of views. This opens up the opportunity for more approaches and alternatives to be considered. The evidence indicates that a group will almost always outperform even the best individual. Groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution. Weaknesses of group decision making It is time consuming. There is a conformity pressure in groups. One or a few members can dominate group discussion. Group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility. Effectiveness and efficiency Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on the criteria you use. In terms of accuracy, group decisions will tend to be more accurate. On the average, groups make better-quality decisions than individuals. If decision effectiveness is defined in terms of speed, individuals are superior. If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effective than individuals. If effectiveness means the degree of acceptance the final solution achieves, groups are better. In terms of efficiency, group decision making consumes more work hours than having an individual tackle the same problem. The exceptions tend to be instances in which, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talking to other people. In deciding whether to use groups, then, managers must assess whether increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the reductions in efficiency. Summary 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. When the final solution is agreed upon, there are more people in a group decision to support and implement it. Group decisions consume time, create internal conflicts, and generate pressures toward conformity. Groupthink and Group shift 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. Group shift describes the way of discussing a given set of alternatives and arriving at a solution. With group shift, group members tend to exaggerate the initial positions they hold. Groupthink Groupthink appears closely aligned with the conclusions Solomon Asch drew in his experiments with a lone dissenter. Individuals who hold a position different from that of the dominant majority are under pressure to suppress, withhold, or modify their true feelings and beliefs. As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement—to be a positive part of the group—than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption would improve effectiveness. Groups that are more focused on performance than learning are especially likely to fall victim to groupthink and to suppress the opinions of those who do not agree with the majority. 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 they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to its positive image. What can managers do to minimize groupthink? First, they can monitor group size. People grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases, and although there is no magic number that will eliminate groupthink, individuals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups get larger than about 10 members. Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of deliberation. In addition, managers should appoint one group member to play the role of devil’s advocate, overtly challenging the majority position and offering divergent perspectives. Yet another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate active discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group or intensifying identity protection. Group shift and group polarization There are differences between group decisions and the individual decisions of group members. What appears to happen in groups is that the discussion leads members toward a more extreme view of the position they already held. Group polarization can be viewed as actually a special case of groupthink. Using the findings of group shift? Recognize that group decisions exaggerate the initial position of the individual members, that the shift has been shown more often to be toward greater risk, and that which way a group will shift is a function of the members’ pre-discussion inclinations. Group Decision Making Techniques Most 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. 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 can overcome pressures for conformity that dampen creativity. In a typical brainstorming session, a half dozen to a dozen people sit around a table. The nominal group technique restricts discussion or interpersonal communication during the decision-making process. Group members are all physically present, but members operate independently. 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. Each of the group-decision techniques has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. The choice depends on what criteria you want to emphasize and the cost–benefit trade-off. As Exhibit 9-5 indicates, an interacting group is good for achieving commitment to a solution, brainstorming develops group cohesiveness, and the nominal group technique is an inexpensive means for generating a large number of ideas. Summary and Implications for Managers We can draw several implications from our discussion of groups. First, norms control behavior by establishing standards of right and wrong. Second, status inequities create frustration and can adversely influence productivity and willingness to remain with an organization. Third, the impact of size on a group’s performance depends on the type of task. Fourth, cohesiveness may influence a group’s level of productivity, depending on the group’s performance-related norms. Fifth, 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. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced tension and job dissatisfaction. Specific implications for managers are below: Recognize that groups can dramatically affect individual behavior in organizations, to either positive or negative effect. Therefore, pay special attention to roles, norms, and cohesion—to understand how these are operating within a group is to understand how the group is likely to behave. To decrease the possibility of deviant workplace activities, ensure that group norms do not support antisocial behavior. Pay attention to the status aspect of groups. Because lower-status people tend to participate less in group discussions, groups with high status differences are likely to inhibit input from lower-status members and reduce their potential. Use larger groups for fact-finding activities and smaller groups for action-taking tasks. With larger groups, provide measures of individual performance. To increase employee satisfaction, make certain people perceive their job roles accurately. EXPANDED CHAPTER OUTLINE Defining and Classifying Groups Definition 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. Formal groups—those defined by the organization’s structure, with designated work assignments establishing tasks. The behaviors that one should engage in are stipulated by and directed toward organizational goals. An airline flight crew is an example of a formal group. Informal groups—alliances that are neither formally structured nor organizationally determined. Natural formations in the work environment in response to the need for social contact. Three employees from different departments who regularly eat lunch together is an informal group. Social Identity Our tendency to take personal pride or offense for the accomplishments of a group is the territory of social identity theory. Social identity theory proposes that people have emotional reactions to the failure or success of their group because their self-esteem gets tied into the performance of the group. Social identities help us understand who we are and where we fit in with other people, but they can have a negative side as well. Social identities can even lead people to experience pleasure as a result of seeing another group suffer. We often see these feelings of schadenfreude in the joy fans experience when a hated team loses. Our social identities help us understand who we are and where we fit in with other people, and research indicates they bring us better health and lower levels of depression because we become less likely to attribute negative situations to internal or insurmountable reasons. Within our organizations and workgroups, we can develop many identities through: (1) relational identification, when we connect with others because of our roles, and (2) collective identification, when we connect with the aggregate characteristics of our groups. Ingroups and Outgroups Ingroup favoritism occurs when we see members of our group as better than other people, and people not in our group as all the same. Recent research suggests that people with low openness and/or low agreeableness are more susceptible to ingroup favoritism. Whenever there is an ingroup, there is, by necessity, an outgroup, which is sometimes everyone else, but is usually an identified group known by thein group’s members. When there are ingroups and outgroups, there is often animosity between them. One of the most powerful sources of ingroup–outgroup feelings is the practice of religion, even in the workplace. One global study, for instance, found that when groups became heavily steeped in religious rituals and discussions, they became especially discriminatory toward outgroups and aggressive if the out groups had more resources. Social Identity Threat Ingroups and outgroups pave the way for social identity threat, which is akin to stereotype threat (see Chapter 6). With social identity threat, individuals believe they will be personally negatively evaluated due to their association with a devalued group, and they may lose confidence and performance effectiveness. Stages of Group Development An Alternative Model for Temporary Groups with Deadlines Temporary groups with deadlines have their own unique sequencing of actions (or inaction). Their first meeting sets the group’s direction. This first phase of group activity is one of inertia. A transition takes place at the end of this phase, which occurs exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time. A transition initiates major changes. A second phase of inertia follows the transition. The group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity. This pattern, called the punctuated-equilibrium model, is shown in Exhibit 9-1. Group Properties: Roles Introduction Work groups are not unorganized mobs; they have properties that shape members’ behavior and help explain and predict individual behavior within the group, as well as the performance of the group itself. Some of these properties are roles, norms, status, size, cohesiveness, and diversity. Group Property 1: Roles Introduction All group members are actors, each playing a role. A set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit. We are required to play a number of diverse roles, both on and off our jobs. Different groups impose different role requirements on individuals. Role perception: One’s view of how one is supposed to act in a given situation is a role perception. Apprenticeship programs exist to allow beginners to watch an “expert, ” so that they can learn to act as they are supposed to. Role expectations: 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. The psychological contract is an unwritten agreement that exists between employees and their employer. It sets out mutual expectations. If role expectations as implied are not met, expect negative effects on employee performance and satisfaction. Role conflict: At the extreme, two or more role expectations are mutually contradictory. It exists when compliance with one role requirement may make the compliance with another more difficult. We can experience inter role conflict when the expectations of our different, separate groups are in opposition. Within organizations, most employees are simultaneously in occupations, workgroups, divisions, and demographic groups, and these identities can conflict when the expectations of one clash with the expectations of another. During mergers and acquisitions, employees can be torn between their identities as members of their original organization and of the new parent company. Multinational organizations also have been shown to lead to dual identification—with the local division and with the international organization. Role Play and Assimilation One of the most illuminating role and identity experiments was done a number of years ago by Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his associates. They created a “prison” in the basement of the Stanford psychology building, hired, at $15 a day, two dozen emotionally stable, physically healthy, law-abiding students who scored “normal average” on extensive personality tests, randomly assigned them the role of either “guard” or “prisoner”, and established some basic rules. It took little time for the “prisoners” to accept the authority positions of the “guards” and for the mock guards to adjust to their new authority roles. Consistent with social identity theory, the guards came to see the prisoners as a negative out-group, and their comments to researchers showed they had developed stereotypes about the “typical” prisoner personality type. After the guards crushed a rebellion attempt on the second day, the prisoners became increasingly passive. Whatever the guards “dished out, ” the prisoners took. The prisoners actually began to believe and act as if they were inferior and powerless, as the guards constantly reminded them. And every guard, at some time during the simulation, engaged in abusive, authoritative behavior. One said, “I was surprised at myself…I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle, and I kept thinking: ‘I have to watch out for them in case they try something.’” Surprisingly, during the entire experiment—even after days of abuse—not one prisoner said, “Stop this. I’m a student like you. This is just an experiment!” The simulation actually proved too successful in demonstrating how quickly individuals learn new roles. The researchers had to end it after only 6 days because of the participants’ pathological reactions. And remember, these were individuals chosen precisely for their normalcy and emotional stability. What should you conclude from this prison simulation? The participants had learned stereotyped conceptions of guard and prisoner roles from the mass media and their own personal experiences in power and powerless relationships at home. This allowed them easily and rapidly to assume roles that were very different from their inherent personalities. Group Properties 2: Norms Introduction All groups have norms Acceptable standards of behavior that are shared by the group’s members that tell members what they ought and ought not to do under certain circumstances. Norms and Emotions A recent study found that, in a task group, individuals’ emotions influenced the group’s emotions and vice versa. Researchers have also found that norms dictated the experience of emotions for the individuals and for the groups – in other words, people grew to interpret their shared emotions in the same way. Norms and Conformity The impact that group pressures for conformity can have on an individual member’s judgment was demonstrated in studies by Solomon Asch and others. (Exhibit 9-2) Do individuals conform to the pressures of all groups to which they belong? Obviously not, because people belong to many groups, and their norms vary and sometimes are contradictory. People conform to their reference groups, in which a person is aware of other members, defines himself or herself as a member or would like to be a member, and feels group members are significant to him or her. The implication, then, is that all groups do not impose equal conformity pressures on their members. Norms and Behavior Experiments conducted between 1924 and 1932 by Elton Mayo at Western Electric at the company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago. The Hawthorne researchers began by examining the relationship between the physical environment and productivity. Illumination and other working conditions were selected to represent this physical environment. The researchers’ initial findings contradicted their anticipated results. As a follow-up, the researchers began a second set of experiments in the relay assembly test room at Western Electric. Observations covering a multiyear period found this small group’s output increased steadily. It became evident that this group’s performance was significantly influenced by its status as “special.” In essence, workers in both the illumination and assembly-test-room experiments were reacting to the increased attention they received. A third study, in the bank wiring observation room, was introduced to ascertain the effect of a sophisticated wage incentive plan. The most important finding of this study was that employees did not individually maximize their outputs. Their output became controlled by a group norm that determined what was a proper day’s work. Interviews determined the group was operating well below its capability and was leveling output to protect itself. Members were afraid that if they significantly increased their output, the unit incentive rate would be cut, the expected daily output would be increased, layoffs might occur, or slower workers would be reprimanded. The norms the group established included a number of “don’ts”: Don’t be a rate-buster, turning out too much work. Don’t be a chiseler, turning out too little work. Don’t squeal on any of your peers. How did the group enforce these norms? The methods included sarcasm, name-calling, ridicule, and even punches to the upper arm of any member who violated the group’s norms. Members also ostracized individuals whose behavior was against the group’s interest. Positive Norms and Group Outcomes One goal of every organization with corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives is for its values to hold normative sway over employees. After all, if employees aligned their thinking with positive norms, these norms would become stronger and the probability of positive impact would grow exponentially. We might expect the same outcomes from political correctness (PC) norms. But what is the effect of strong positive norms on group outcomes? The popular thinking is that to increase creativity in groups, for instance, norms should be loosened. However, research on gender-diverse groups indicates that strong PC norms increase group creativity. Positive group norms may well beget positive outcomes, but only if other factors are present, too. As powerful as norms can be, though, not everyone is equally susceptible to positive group norms. Individual personalities factor in, too, as well as the level of a person’s social identity with the group. Negative Norms and Group Outcomes Deviant workplace behavior refers to 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 9-3) Few organizations will admit to creating or condoning conditions that encourage and maintain deviant behaviors. Yet they exist. For one, as we discussed before, a workgroup can become characterized by positive or negative attributes. Second, employees have been reporting an increase in rudeness and disregard toward others by bosses and coworkers in recent years. Workplace incivility, like many other deviant behaviors, has many negative outcomes for the victims. Nearly half of employees who have suffered this incivility say it has led them to think about changing jobs; 12 percent actually quit because of it. Third, research suggests that a lack of sleep, which is often caused by heightened work demands and which hinders a person’s ability to regulate emotions and behaviors, can lead to deviant behavior. Someone who ordinarily wouldn’t engage in deviant behavior might be more likely to do so when working in a group. Norms and Culture Do people in collectivist cultures have different norms than people in individualist cultures? Of course they do. But did you know that our orientation may be changed, even after years of living in one society. Group Property 3: Status Status is a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others. What determines status? Status characteristics theory – differences in status characteristics create status hierarchies within groups. Status is derived from one of three sources: The power a person wields over others. A person’s ability to contribute to group’s goals. Individual’s personal characteristics. Status and norms 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. Status and group interaction Interaction is influenced by status. High-status people tend to be assertive. Status differences inhibit diversity of ideas & creativity. Lower-status members tend to be less active. Status inequity When inequity is perceived, it creates disequilibrium that results in corrective behavior. Hierarchical groups can lead to resentment among those at the lower end of the status continuum. Large differences in status within groups are also associated with poorer individual performance, lower health, and higher intentions to leave the group. Groups generally agree within themselves on status criteria; hence, there is usually high concurrence in group rankings of individuals. Managers who occupy central positions in their social networks are typically seen as higher in status by their subordinates, and this position translates into greater influence over the group’s functioning. Individuals can find themselves in conflicts when they move between groups whose status criteria are different, or when they join groups whose members have heterogeneous backgrounds. Business executives may use personal income or the growth rate of their companies as determinants of status. Government bureaucrats may use the size of their budgets, and blue-collar workers years of seniority. When groups are heterogeneous or when heterogeneous groups must be interdependent, status differences may initiate conflict as the group attempts to reconcile the differing hierarchies. As we’ll see in Chapter 10, this can be a problem when management creates teams of employees from varied functions. Status and stigmatization Studies have shown that people who are stigmatized against can “infect” others with their stigma. This “stigma by association” effect can result in negative opinions and evaluations of the person affiliated with the stigmatized individual, even if the association is brief and purely coincidental. Group Property 4: Size The size of a group affects the group’s overall behavior, but the effect depends on the dependent variables. Large groups—a dozen or more members—are good for gaining diverse input. Smaller groups—seven members—are better at doing something productive with that input. Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. Causes of social loafing A belief that others in the group are not carrying their fair share. The dispersion of responsibility and the relationship between an individual’s input and the group’s output is clouded. There will be a reduction in efficiency where individuals think that their contribution cannot be measured. Social loafing appears to have a Western bias. It’s consistent with individualistic cultures, such as the United States and Canada that are dominated by self-interest. It is consistent with collective societies, in which individuals are motivated by group goals. In studies comparing U.S. employees with employees from the People’s Republic of China and Israel (both collectivist societies), the Chinese and Israelis showed no propensity to engage in social loafing and actually performed better in a group than alone. Preventing social loafing Set group goals, so the group has a common purpose to strive toward. Increase intergroup competition, which again focuses on the shared outcome. Engage in peer evaluation so each person evaluates each other person’s contribution. Select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in groups. If possible, base group rewards in part on each member’s unique contributions. Group Property 5: Cohesiveness, and Group Property 6: Diversity Group Property 5: Cohesiveness (Exhibit 9-4) Groups differ in their cohesiveness– the degree to which members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group. Cohesiveness is important because it is related to the group’s productivity. The relationship of cohesiveness and productivity depends on the performance-related norms established by the group. If performance-related norms are high, a cohesive group will be more productive. If cohesiveness is high and performance norms are low, productivity will be low. How to encourage group cohesiveness: Make the group smaller. Encourage agreement with group goals. Increase the time members spend together. Increase the status of the group and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership in the group. Stimulate competition with other groups. Give rewards to the group rather than to individual members. Physically isolate the group. Group Property 6: Diversity The final property of groups we consider is diversity in the group’s membership, the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one another. A great deal of research is being done on how diversity influences group performance. One study compared groups that were culturally diverse (composed of people from different countries) and homogeneous (composed of people from the same country). On a wilderness survival exercise (not unlike the Experiential Exercise at the end of this chapter), the groups performed equally well, but the diverse groups were less satisfied with their groups, were less cohesive, and had more conflict. Another study examined the effect of differences in tenure on the performance of 67 engineering research and development groups. When most people had roughly the same level of tenure, performance was high, but as tenure diversity increased, performance dropped off. There was an important qualifier: higher levels of tenure diversity were not related to lower performance for groups when there were effective team-oriented human resources practices. However, culturally and demographically diverse groups may perform better over time—if they can get over their initial conflicts. Surface-level diversity—in observable characteristics such as national origin, race, and gender—alerts people to possible deep-level diversity—in underlying attitudes, values, and opinions. One researcher argues, “The mere presence of diversity you can see, such as a person’s race or gender, actually cues a team that there’s likely to be differences of opinion.” Two studies of MBA student groups found surface-level diversity led to greater openness even without deep-level diversity. Here, surface-level diversity may subconsciously cue team members to be more open-minded in their views. The impact of diversity on groups is mixed. It is difficult to be in a diverse group in the short term. However, if members can weather their differences, over time diversity may help them be more open-minded and creative and to do better. But even positive effects are unlikely to be especially strong. As one review stated, “The business case (in terms of demonstrable financial results) for diversity remains hard to support based on the extant research.” One possible side effect in diverse teams—especially those that are diverse in terms of surface level characteristics—is fault lines, or perceived divisions that split groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as sex, race, age, work experience, and education. Research on fault lines has shown that splits such as these are generally detrimental to group functioning and performance. Overall, although research on fault lines suggests that diversity in groups is a potential double-edged sword, recent work indicates they can be strategically employed to improve performance. Group Decision Making Groups Versus the Individual Strengths of group decision making: Groups generate more complete information and knowledge. They offer increased diversity of views. This opens up the opportunity for more approaches and alternatives to be considered. The evidence indicates that a group will almost always outperform even the best individual. Groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution. Weaknesses of group decision making: It is time consuming. There is a conformity pressure in groups. One or a few members can dominate group discussion. Group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility. Effectiveness and efficiency Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on the criteria you use. In terms of accuracy, group decisions will tend to be more accurate. On the average, groups make better-quality decisions than individuals. If decision effectiveness is defined in terms of speed, individuals are superior. If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effective than individuals. If effectiveness means the degree of acceptance the final solution achieves, groups are better. In terms of efficiency, group decision making consumes more work hours than having an individual tackle the same problem. The exceptions tend to be instances in which, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talking to other people. In deciding whether to use groups, then, managers must assess whether increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the reductions in efficiency. Summary 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. When the final solution is agreed upon, there are more people in a group decision to support and implement it. Group decisions consume time, create internal conflicts, and generate pressures toward conformity. Groupthink and Group shift 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 performance. Group shift In group shift, which describes the way of discussing a given set of alternatives and arriving at a solution, group members tend to exaggerate the initial positions they hold. In some situations, caution dominates and there is a conservative shift, while in others, groups tend toward a risky shift. Groupthink Groupthink appears closely aligned with the conclusions Solomon Asch drew in his experiments with a lone dissenter. Individuals who hold a position different from that of the dominant majority are under pressure to suppress, withhold, or modify their true feelings and beliefs. As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement—to be a positive part of the group—than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption would improve effectiveness. Groups that are more focused on performance than learning are especially likely to fall victim to groupthink and to suppress the opinions of those who do not agree with the majority. 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 they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to its positive image. What can managers do to minimize groupthink? First, they can monitor group size. People grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases, and although there is no magic number that will eliminate groupthink, individuals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups get larger than about 10 members. Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of deliberation. In addition, managers should appoint one group member to play the role of devil’s advocate, overtly challenging the majority position and offering divergent perspectives. Yet another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate active discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group or intensifying identity protection. Group shift and group polarization There are differences between group decisions and the individual decisions of group members. What appears to happen in groups is that the discussion leads members toward a more extreme view of the position they already held. Conservatives become more cautious, and more aggressive types take on more risk. The group discussion tends to exaggerate the initial position of the group. Group polarization can be viewed actually as 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 shift toward polarization has generated several explanations. It’s been argued, for instance, that discussion makes the members more comfortable with each other and, thus, more willing to express extreme versions of their original positions. Another argument is that the group diffuses responsibility. Group decisions free any single member from accountability for the group’s final choice, so more extreme position can be taken. It’s also likely that people take on extreme positions because they want to demonstrate how different they are from the out-group. People on the fringes of political or social movements take on ever- more extreme positions just to prove they are really committed to the cause, whereas those who are more cautious tend to take exceptionally moderate positions to demonstrate how reasonable they are. Using the findings of group shift? Recognize that group decisions exaggerate the initial position of the individual members, that the shift has been shown more often to be toward greater risk, and that which way a group will shift is a function of the members’ pre-discussion inclinations. Group Decision-Making Techniques Most 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. 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. In a typical brainstorming session, a half dozen to a dozen people sit around a table. The nominal group technique restricts discussion or interpersonal communication during the decision-making process. Group members are all physically present, but members operate independently. Specifically, a problem is presented, and then the following steps take place: Before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes down his or her ideas on the problem. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. The group now discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them. Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision. The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits the group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking, as does the interacting group. Each of the group-decision techniques has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. The choice depends on what criteria you want to emphasize and the cost–benefit trade-off. As Exhibit 9-5 indicates, an interacting group is good for achieving commitment to a solution, brainstorming develops group cohesiveness, and the nominal group technique is an inexpensive means for generating a large number of ideas. Summary and Implications for Managers We can draw several implications from our discussion of groups. First, norms control behavior by establishing standards of right and wrong. The norms of a given group can help explain members’ behaviors for managers. Second, status inequities create frustration and can adversely influence productivity and willingness to remain with an organization. Third, the impact of size on a group’s performance depends on the type of task. Larger groups are associated with lower satisfaction. Fourth, cohesiveness may influence a group’s level of productivity, depending on the group’s performance-related norms. Fifth, 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. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced tension and job dissatisfaction. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced tension and job dissatisfaction. Specific implications for managers are below: Recognize that groups can dramatically affect individual behavior in organizations, to either positive or negative effect. Therefore, pay special attention to roles, norms, and cohesion—to understand how these are operating within a group is to understand how the group is likely to behave. To decrease the possibility of deviant workplace activities, ensure that group norms do not support antisocial behavior. Pay attention to the status aspect of groups. Because lower-status people tend to participate less in group discussions, groups with high status differences are likely to inhibit input from lower-status members and reduce their potential. Use larger groups for fact-finding activities and smaller groups for action-taking tasks. With larger groups, provide measures of individual performance. To increase employee satisfaction, make certain people perceive their job roles accurately. Myth or Science? Gossip and Exclusion Are Toxic For Groups This is not necessarily true. But it's certainly counterintuitive, so let's explore the conditions. What is gossip? Most of us might say gossip is talking about others, sharing rumors, and speculating about others behaviors; gossip affects a a person's reputation. We might also say gossip is malicious, but according to researchers, it can serve positive social functions, too. Prosocial gossip can expose behavior that exploits other people, which can lead to positive changes. For example, if Julie tells Chris that Alex is bullying Summer, then Chris has learned about Alex’s poor behavior through gossiping. Chris might refuse to partner with Alexon on a work project, which might limit Alex’s opportunities with the organization, preventing him from bullying more people. Alternatively, as the gossip spreads, Alex might feel exposed for his behavior and conform to group expectations against bullying behavior. In fact, according to research, Alex is likely to cooperate with the group in response to the gossip, and others hearing and spreading the gossip are likely to cooperate by not acting on their impulses toward bad behavior. What about excluding Alex? There are two types of exclusion in the workplace: leaving someone out of a group and ostracizing an individual. Both lead to the same end—the person isn’t part of the group—but while simply leaving someone out of a group might not send a message of exclusion, ostracism certainly does. Ostracism is more of a form of punishment than gossip since it is more direct. Research indicates that ostracized individuals cooperate to a greater degree when they are around the group to show a willingness to conform, hoping to be invited back into the group. Can gossip and ostracism work together? Yes, according to a recent study. When subjects were given an opportunity to gossip about the work of another subject, that subject cooperated more than before; when the opportunity to gossip was paired with the ability to ostracize, that subject cooperated to a much greater degree. Thus, gossip and exclusion may provide groups with benefits, at least when the gossip is confined to truthful work-related discussion, when the opportunity still exists to rejoin the group with full standing, and when the group norms are positive. Sources: M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, “The Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An Integrative Review, ” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245–74;M. Feinberg, R. Willer, and M. Schultz, “Gossip and Ostracism Promote Cooperation in Groups, ” Psychological Science 25, no. 3(2014): 656–64; and I. H. Smith, K. Aquino, S. Koleva, and J. Graham, “The Moral Ties That Bind…Even to Out-Groups: The Interactive Effect of Moral Identity and the Binding Moral Foundations, ” Psychological Science(2014): 1554–62. Class Exercise Divide the class into groups of three to five students each. Ask each group to discuss gossip and exclusion using social media. Among the things they should address is how gossip and exclusion via social media differs from face to face interaction. Which is more effective? Which could hurt or harm a group more? 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. An Ethical Choice Using Peer Pressure as an Influence Tactic We’ve all experienced peer pressure, and it can be hard to behave differently from your friends and coworkers. As more work in organizations is performed in groups and teams, the possibilities and pitfalls of such pressure have become an increasingly important ethical issue for managers. Peer pressure can be a positive force in some ways. In groups or departments where high effort and performance are the norms, peer pressure from coworkers, whether direct or indirect, can encourage high performance from those not meeting expectations. For example, vehicle accidents at a Ghanaian gold mine were lowered when good drivers, rather than managers or staff professionals, trained new drivers. A team with a norm toward behaving ethically could also use peer pressure directly to minimize negative behavior. Thus, peer pressure can promote all sorts of good behaviors, from donating to charity to working for the Salvation Army. However, as the chapter has shown, peer pressure can also be destructive. It can create a feeling of exclusion in those who do not go along with group norms and can be very stressful and hurtful for those who don’t see eye-to-eye with the rest of the group. Peer pressure itself might become an unethical practice that unduly influences workers’ behavior and thoughts. And while groups might pressure others into performing good behaviors, they can just as easily pressure them into performing bad behaviors. Should you use group peer pressure? As a leader, you may need to. One recent survey found that only 6 percent of leaders reported being able to successfully influence their employees. If you do use peer pressure to encourage individuals to work toward team goals and behave consistently with organizational values, it can enhance ethical performance. But your behavior should emphasize acceptance and rewarding of positive behavior, rather than rejection and exclusion, as a means of getting everyone to behave consistently in a group. Sources: Based on: A. Verghese, “The Healing Power of Peer Pressure, ” Newsweek (March 14, 2011), www.newsweek.com; T. Rosenberg, Join the Club: How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011); and J. Meer, “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Peer Pressure in Charitable Solicitation, ” Journal of Public Economics 95, no. 7–8 (2011), pp. 926–941; and L. Potter, “Lack Influence at Work? Why Most Leaders Struggle to Lead Positive Change, ” The Wall Street Journal (May 14, 2013), downloaded on May 28, 2013, from www.online.wsj.com. Class Exercise Divide the class into teams of three to five students each. Ask each team to view scenes from the movie The Music Man. The first can be seen at http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdIand the second at http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=npHJ5Dzrjx8&feature=related. These scenes are important—first is the scene where Professor Hill is looking for a problem that affects the people of River City, and he breaks into the song Trouble. Right Here in River City. The second is the scene at the high school gym for the Fourth of July ceremony that ends with the song Seventy-Six Trombones. Ask students to evaluate how group pressure is used by Hill to sway the behavior of the town’s people in the direction he desires. They should evaluate the process as follows: Hill finds a subject that’s important to the townspeople—the morals of their children. Hill persuasively targets that common concern using very persuasive argument about the dangers, even if they are not really all that serious. His actions at the Fourth of July ceremony thrust the peoples’ opinions into the idea that occupying the children in a summer band will prevent the moral danger. People come together as a group with a social norm that the band is a legitimate solution to the common perceived problem. This is a manipulative use of the concept that develops quickly. Could this technique be used to promote positive behaviors in a group? 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. Personal Inventory Assessments Communicating Supportively Are you a supportive person? Take this PIA to find out if you communicate supportively. Career Objectives Can I fudge the numbers and not take the blame? I’ve got a great workgroup, except for one thing: the others make me omit negative information about our group's success that I’m in charge of as the treasurer. They gang up on me, insult me, and threaten me, so in the end, I report what they want. They say omitting the negative information is not really wrong, and it doesn’t violate our organization’s rules, but on my own, I would report everything. I need to stay in the group or I’ll lose my job. If we are called out on the numbers, can I just put the blame on the whole group? — Jean-Claude Dear Jean-Claude: The short answer is that, since you are in a leadership role in the group, you may not have the option of blaming others. Further, you may be held individually accountable as a leader for the outcomes of this situation. Your dilemma is not unusual. Once we think of ourselves as part of a collective, we want to stay in the group and can become vulnerable to pressures to conform. The pressure you're getting from multiple members can make you aware that you’re in the minority in the group, and taunting can make you feel like an outsider or lesser member; therefore, threats to harm your group's standing may feel powerful. So you have a choice: submit to the pressure and continue misrepresenting your group’s success, or adhere to the responsibility you have as the treasurer and come clean. From an ethical standpoint, we hope you don’t consider the first option an acceptable choice. To make a change, you may be able to use social identification to your advantage. Rather than challenging the group as a whole, try meeting with individual group members to build trust, talking to each other as fellow members of a worthy group that can succeed without any ethical quandaries. Don’t try to build a coalition; instead, build trust with individuals and change the climate of the group to value ethical behavior. Then, the next time you need to report the numbers, you can call upon the group’s increased ethical awareness to gain support for your leadership decisions. Sources: M. Chikara and J. J. Van Bavel, “The Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An Integrative Review,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245–74; 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 (2015): 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): 674–795. Point/Counterpoint People Are More Creative When They Work Alone Point I know groups are all the rage. Businesses are knocking down walls and cubicles to create more open, “collaborative” environments. “Self-managing teams” are replacing the traditional middle manager. Students in universities are constantly working on group projects, and even young children are finding themselves learning in small groups. I also know why groups are all the rage. Work, they say, has become too complex for individuals to perform alone. Groups are better at brainstorming and coming up with creative solutions to complicated problems. Groups also produce higher levels of commitment and satisfaction—so long as group members develop feelings of cohesiveness and trust one another. But for every group that comes up with a creative solution, I’ll show you twice as many individuals who would come up with a better solution had they only been left alone. Consider creative geniuses like DaVinci, Newton, and Picasso. Or more recently, Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple Computer. All were introverts who toiled by themselves. According to Wozniak, “I’m going to give you some advice that might be hard to take. That advice is: Work alone…not on a committee. Not on a team.” But enough anecdotal evidence. Research has also shown that groups can kill creativity. One study found that computer programmers at companies that give them privacy and freedom from interruptions outperformed their counterparts at companies that forced more openness and collaboration. Or consider Adrian Furnham, an organizational psychologist whose research led him to conclude that “business people must be insane to use brainstorming groups.” People slack off in groups, and they’re afraid to communicate any ideas that might make them sound dumb. These problems don’t exist when people work alone. So heed Picasso’s advice: “Without great solitude, no serious work is possible.” Counterpoint I’ll grant your point that there are circumstances in which groups can hinder creative progress, but if the right conditions are put in place, groups are simply much better at coming up with novel solutions to problems than are individuals. Using strategies such as the nominal group technique, generating ideas electronically rather than face to face, and ensuring that individuals do not evaluate others’ ideas until all have been generated are just a few ways you can set up groups for creative success. The fact of the matter is that problems are too complex these days for individuals to effectively perform alone. Consider the Rovers launched by NASA to roam around Mars collecting data. An accomplishment like that is made possible only by a group, not a lone individual. Steve Wozniak’s collaboration with Steve Jobs is what really made Apple sail as a company. In addition, considerable research information shows that the most influential research is conducted by teams of academics, rather than individuals. Indeed, if you look at recent Nobel Prize winners in areas such as economics, physics, and chemistry, the majority have been won by academics who collaborated on the research. So if you want creativity, two heads are in fact better than one. Sources: S. Cain, “The Rise of the New Groupthink, ” The New York Times (January 15, 2012), pp. 1, 6; and C. Faure, “Beyond Brainstorming: Effects of Different Group Procedures on Selection of Ideas and Satisfaction with the Process, ” Journal of Creative Behavior 38 (2004), pp. 13–34. Class Exercise: Divide the class into paired teams of three to five students each. Assign one team in each pair to take the Point position and the other in the pair to take the Counterpoint position. Have each side prepare a presentation to support its position. Have each pair present the Point and Counterpoint arguments. Ask the class to vote on the debate that was the most creative, well supported, and persuasive. 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. Instructor Manual for Organizational Behavior Timothy A. Judge Stephen P. Robbins 9781292146300, 9780133507645, 9780136124016
