Module V Group Behaviour PDF

Foundations of Group Behavior © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Learning Learning Objectives Objectives  Differentiate bet...

Foundations of Group Behavior © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Learning Learning Objectives Objectives  Differentiate between formal and informal groups.  Compare two models of group development.  Explain how role requirements change in different situations.  Describe how norms exert influence on an individual’s behavior.  Explain what determines status.  Define social loafing and its effect on group performance.  Identify the benefits and disadvantages of cohesive groups.  List the strengths and weaknesses of group decision- making.  Contrast the effectiveness of interacting, brainstorming, nominal, and electronic meeting groups. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  A A Model Model of of Group Group Formation Formation and and Development Development Types of Reasons for Stages of Some Group End Groups Group Group Characteristics Results Formal Formation Development - Security need - Composition 1. Command 1. Forming - Performance satisfaction - Status 2. Task - Social need 2. Storming hierarchy - Satisfaction 3. Team satisfaction 3. Norming - Roles - Development - Esteem need Informal 4. Performing satisfaction - Norms 1. Interest - Proximity & 5. Adjourning - Leadership 2. Friendship attraction - Group goals - Cohesiveness - Economic reasons © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Defining Defining and and Classifying Classifying Groups Groups Group(s) Two or more individuals interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives. Formal Group Informal Group A designated work A group that is neither group defined by the formally structured nor organization’s organizationally structure. determined; appears in response to the need for social contact. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Defining Defining and and Classifying Classifying Groups Groups (cont’d) (cont’d) Command Group Task Group A group composed Those working of the individuals together to complete who report directly a job or task. to a given manager. Interest Group Friendship Group Those working Those brought together to attain a together because they specific objective share one or more with which each is common concerned. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved. characteristics.  Why Why People People Join Join Groups Groups Security Status Self-esteem Affiliation Power Goal Achievement © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Why Why People People Join Join Groups Groups  Security – by joining a group, individuals can reduce the insecurity of “standing alone”.  Status – inclusion in a group that is viewed as important provides recognition & status for its members.  Self-esteem – groups can provide people with feelings of self-worth.  Affiliation – groups can fulfill social needs.  Power – what cannot be achieved individually often becomes possible through group action. There is power in numbers.  Goal Achievement – when it takes more than one person to accomplish a particular task – there is a need to pool talents, knowledge, or power in order to complete a job. In such cases, management will rely on formal groups. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Why Why People People form form Groups Groups Slide Slide11ofof22 Need Satisfaction Proximity & Attraction Social Needs Proximity is the physical distance between Security Needs employees. Attraction is typically engendered by Esteem Needs similarities in attitudes, performance or motivations. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Why Why People People form form Groups Groups Slide Slide22ofof22 Achievement of Economic Benefits Group Goals Group goals, if clearly In many cases, groups understood, can be a form because people reasons why people are believe they can derive drawn to a group. greater economic benefits from their jobs if they organize. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  The The Five-Stage Five-Stage Model Model of of Group Group Development Development Forming Stage The first stage in group development, characterized by much uncertainty. Storming Stage The second stage in group development, characterized by intragroup conflict. Norming Stage The third stage in group development, characterized by close relationships and cohesiveness. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  …Group …Group Development Development (cont’d) (cont’d) Performing Stage The fourth stage in group development, when the group is fully functional. Adjourning Stage The final stage in group development for temporary groups, characterized by concern with wrapping up activities rather than performance. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  The The Five-Stage Five-Stage Model Model of of Group Group Development Development Forming Stage The first stage in group development, characterized by much uncertainty about the group’s purpose, structure, & leadership.  Members are ”testing the waters” to determine what types of behavior are acceptable.  People tend to be polite during this stage and will defer to the existing authority of a formal or informal leader who must provide an initial set of rules & structures for interaction.  Members experience a form of socialization as they try to find out what is expected of them & how they will fit into the team/group. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  The The Five-Stage Five-Stage Model Model of of Group Group Development Development Storming Stage The second stage in group development, characterized by intragroup conflict.  Members accept the existence of the group, but there is resistance to the constraints that the group imposes on individuality.  There is a conflict over who will control the group.  This stage is marked by interpersonal conflict as members become proactive & compete for various group roles.  Coalitions may form to influence the team/group`s goals & means of goal attainment.  Members try to establish norms of appropriate behavior & performance standards. This is a tenuous (weak) stage in the team`s development. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  …Group …Group Development Development (cont’d) (cont’d) Norming Stage The third stage in group development, characterized by close relationships and cohesiveness.  There is now a strong sense of group identity.  During this stage the group develops its first real sense of cohesion as roles are established & a consensus forms around group objectives.  Members develop common expectations & assumptions about how the team`s goals should be accomplished. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  …Group …Group Development Development (cont’d) (cont’d) Performing Stage The fourth stage in group development, when the group is fully functional.  The structure at this point is fully functional & accepted.  Group energy has moved from getting to know & understand each other to performing the task at hand.  Group members have learned to coordinate & resolve conflicts more efficiently.  There is a climate of mutual support in which team members feel comfortable about taking risks, making errors, or asking for help. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  …Group …Group Development Development (cont’d) (cont’d) Adjourning Stage The final stage in group development for temporary groups, characterized by concern with wrapping up activities rather than performance.  For permanent work groups, performing is the last stage in their development.  Temporary groups, task forces & similar groups prepare for disbandment, in this stage.  Attention is directed toward wraping up activities.  In this stage, some members may be basking in the group`s accomplishments while others may be depressed/sad over the loss of relationship/friendship. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  The The Five-Stage Five-Stage Stages Model Model of Group of of Group Group Development Development Development Forming Storming Norming Performing Adjourning  Uncertainty  Marked by  Marked by  Stage where  Involves the about the conflict cooperation the group is termination purpose,  Emotionally and fully of group structure and intense stage collaboration functional activities; leadership disbandment © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Stages Stages of of Group Group Development Development E X H I B I T 9–2 E X H I B I T 9–2 © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  An An Alternative Alternative Model: Model: Temporary Temporary Groups Groups with with Deadlines Deadlines Punctuated- Equilibrium Model Temporary groups under time Sequence Sequenceof ofactions: actions: constrained 1.1. Setting Settinggroup groupdirection direction deadlines go 2.2. First Firstphase phaseof ofinertia inertia through transitions 3.3. Half-way Half-waypoint pointtransition transition between inertia and 4.4. Major Majorchanges changes activity---at the half- 5.5. Second Secondphase phaseofofinertia inertia way point, they 6.6. Accelerated Acceleratedactivity activity experience an increase in productivity. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  The The Punctuated-Equilibrium Punctuated-Equilibrium Model Model Temporary groups with deadlines do not seem to follow the five-stage model.  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 first 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 , and  The group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  The The Punctuated-Equilibrium Punctuated-Equilibrium Model Model E X H I B I T 9–3 E X H I B I T 9–3 © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Development Development........ compared compared  Punctuated-Equilibrium Model characterizes groups as exhibiting long periods of inertia interspersed ( things scattered or placed at intervals) with brief revolutionary changes triggered primarily by their members` awarness of time & deadlines.  If compared with Five-stage group development model, the group begins by combining the forming & normring stages, then goes through a period of low performing, followed by storming, then a period of high performance, and , finally, adjourning. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Properties Properties  Roles  Norms  Status  Size  Cohesiveness © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Properties Properties -- Roles Roles Role(s) A set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit. Role Identity Certain attitudes and behaviors consistent with a role.( promotion to the next higher rank may invoke certain attitudes & behaviors) Role Perception An individual’s view of how he or she is supposed to act in a given situation. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Properties Properties -- Roles Roles (cont’d) (cont’d) Role Expectations How others believe a person should act in a given situation. (e.g., an Imam selling a concert tickets) Psychological Contract An unwritten agreement that sets out what management expects from the employee and vice versa. Role Conflict A situation in which an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Implications......... Implications......... What happens when role expectations as implied in the psychological-contract are not met?  If management is derelict ( negligent in the performance of one`s duty) in keeping its part of the bargain, we can expect negative repercussions on employee performance & satisfaction.  When employees fail to to live up to expectations, the result is usually some form of disciplinary action up to and including firing. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Properties Properties -- Norms Norms Norms Acceptable standards of behavior within a group that are shared by the group’s members. Classes Classesof ofNorms: Norms: Performance Performancenorms norms Appearance Appearancenorms norms Social Socialarrangement arrangementnorms norms Allocation Allocationof ofresources resources norms norms © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Common Common Class Class of of Norms Norms  Performance Norms: Work groups typically provide their members with explicit cues on how hard they should work, how to get the job done, their level of output, appropriate levels of tardiness, and the like. These norms are extremely powerful in affecting an individual employee`s performance.  Appearance Norms: This includes things like appropriate dress, loyalty to the work group or organization, when to look busy etc. Some organizations have formal dress codes.  Social Arrangement Norms: These norms come from informal work groups and primarily regulate social interactions within the group. With whom group members eat lunch, friendships on & off the job, social games, and the like are influenced by these norms.  Allocation of Resources Norms: These norms can originate in the group or in the organization & cover things like pay, assignment of difficult jobs, and allocation of new tools & equipment. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Properties Properties –– Common Common Classes Classes of of Norms Norms Conformity Asch AschStudy Study Adjusting one’s behavior to align with the norms of the group. (When an individual's opinion of objective data differs significantly from that of others in the group, he or she is likely to feel extensive pressure to align his/her opinions to conform with those of the others) Reference Groups Important groups to which individuals belong or hope to belong and with whose norms individuals are likely to conform. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Properties Properties -- Norms Norms (cont’d) (cont’d) Deviant Workplace Behavior Antisocial actions by organizational members that intentionally violate established norms and result in negative consequences for the organization, its members, or both. Group norms can influence the presence of deviant behavior. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Typology Typology of of Deviant Deviant Workplace Workplace Behavior Behavior Category Examples Production Leaving early Intentionally working slowly Wasting resources Property Sabotage Lying about hours worked Stealing from the organization Political Showing favoritism Gossiping and spreading rumors Blaming coworkers Personal Aggression Sexual harassment Verbal Source: Adapted from S.L. Robinson, and R.J. Bennett. “A Typology abuse of Deviant Workplace E X H I B I T 9–5 E X H I B I T 9–5 Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study,” Academy of Management Journal, April 1995, p. 565. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved. Stealing from coworkers © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Properties Properties -- Status Status Status: A socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others. Power Powerover Norms over Norms&& Others Others Interaction Interaction Ability Abilityto to Group GroupMember Member Contribute Contribute Status Status Other things influencing Personal Personal or influenced by status Characteristics Characteristics National National Status StatusInequity Inequity Culture Culture © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Properties Properties -- Status Status Status: A socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others.  Status has some interesting effects on the power of norms & pressures to conform.  For example, high status members of groups often are given more freedom to deviate from norms than are other group members.  High-status people also are better able to resist conformity pressures than their lower-status peers. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Properties Properties -- Size Size Social Loafing The tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. Performance Other Otherconclusions: conclusions: g) Odd number groups do d fi n Odd number groups do te a better betterthan thaneven. even. lo c pe t o Groups of 5 to 7 perform Ex u e Groups of 5 to 7 perform ( d better betteroverall overallthan thanlarger larger u al or smaller groups. c t or smaller groups. A Group Size © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  What What causes causes Social Social Loafing Loafing effect? effect?  It may be due to the belief that others in the group are not carrying their fair share. If you see others as lazy or inept, you can reestablish equity by reducing your effort.  Dispersion of responsibility.Because the results of the group cannot be attributed to any single person, the relationship between an individual`s input & the group`s output is clouded. ( free-rider)  In other words, there will be a reduction in efficiency where individuals think that their contribution cannot be measured. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Properties Properties -- Cohesiveness Cohesiveness Cohesiveness Degree to which group members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group. Increasing Increasinggroup groupcohesiveness: cohesiveness: 1.1. Make Makethe thegroup groupsmaller. smaller. 2.2. Encourage Encourageagreement agreementwith withgroup groupgoals. goals. 3.3. Increase Increasetime timemembers membersspend spendtogether. together. 4.4. Increase Increasegroup groupstatus statusand andadmission admissiondifficultly. difficultly. 5.5. Stimulate Stimulatecompetition competitionwith withother othergroups. groups. 6.6. Give Giverewards rewardstotothe thegroup, group,not notindividuals. individuals. 7.7. Physically Physicallyisolate isolatethe thegroup. group. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Relationship Relationship Between Between Group Group Cohesiveness, Cohesiveness, Performance Performance Norms, Norms, and and Productivity Productivity E X H I B I T 9-7 E X H I B I T 9-7 © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved. S. Adams, Build a Better Life by Stealing Office Supplies (Kansas City MO: Andrews & E X H I B I T 9–8 McMeal, 1991), p. 31. Dilbert reprinted with permission of United Features Syndicate, Inc. E X H I B I T 9–8 © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Decision Decision Making Making Decision-making – Large groups facilitate the pooling of information about complex tasks. – Smaller groups are better suited to coordinating and facilitating the implementation of complex tasks. – Simple, routine standardized tasks reduce the requirement that group processes be effective in order for the group to perform well. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Decision Decision Making Making (cont’d) (cont’d)  Strengths  Weaknesses – More complete – More time information consuming – Increased (slower) diversity of views – Increased – Higher quality of pressure to decisions (more conform accuracy) – Domination by – Increased one or a few acceptance of members solutions – Ambiguous responsibility © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Decision Decision Making Making (cont’d) (cont’d) Groupthink Phenomenon in which the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative course of action. Groupshift A change in decision risk between the group’s decision and the individual decision that member within the group would make; can be either toward conservatism or greater risk. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Decision Decision Making Making (cont’d) (cont’d) Groupthink Phenomenon in which the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative course of action. It describes situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views. It is a disease that attacks many groups & can hinder their performance. The tendency of highly cohesive groups to value consensus at the price of decision quality.( McShane 2ed) The best known example is NASA`s space shuttle challenger explosion in 1986. Key decision makers at NASA experienced many groupthink symptoms. Although engineers raised concerns about the O-ring seals before the launch, but they were criticized for doing so because the decision makers were under © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. intense pressure to launch due to the previous All rights reserved. delays & promises of the program's success.  Symptoms Symptoms Of Of The The Groupthink Groupthink Phenomenon Phenomenon  Group members rationalize any resistance to the assumptions they have made.( No matter how strongly the evidence may contradict their basic assumptions, members behave so as to reinforce those assumptions continually.)  Members apply direct pressures on those who express doubts about shared views or who question the alternative favored by the majority.  Members who have doubts or differing points of view keep silent about misgivings and even minimizing to themselves the importance of their doubts.  There appears to be an illusion of unanimity. (if someone does not speak, it is assumed that he/she is in full accord.) © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Decision Decision Making Making (cont’d)….. (cont’d)….. Group shift A change in decision risk between the group’s decision and the individual decision that member within the group would make; can be either toward conservatism or greater risk. The groupshift can be viewed as actually a special case of groupthink. What appears to happen in groups is that the discussion leads to a significant shift in the positions of members toward a more extreme position, in the direction in which they were already leaning before the discussion. So conservative types become more cautious & the more aggressive types take on more risk. The group discussion tends to exaggerate the initial position of the group. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Groupshift..... Groupshift.....  In comparing group decisions with the individual decisions of members within the group, evidence suggest that there are differences. In some cases, the group decisions are more conservative than the individual decisions. More often, the shift is towards greater risk.  The most plausible explanation of the shift toward risk, is that the group diffuses responsibility. Group decisions free any single member from accountability for the group`s final choice. Greater risk can be taken because even if the decision fails, no one member can be held wholly responsible. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Decision-Making Decision-Making Techniques Techniques Interacting Groups Typical groups, in which the members interact with each other face-to-face. Members rely on both verbal & nonverbal interaction to communicate with each other. Interacting groups often censor (A person who exercises supervision or judgment over the conduct or morals of others ) themselves & pressure individual members toward conformity of opinion. Nominal Group Technique A group decision-making method in which individual members meet face-to-face to pool their judgments in a systematic but independent fashion. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Nominal Nominal Group Group Decision-making Decision-making Technique Technique 1. Members meet as a group but, before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes down his/her ideas on the problem. 2. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. Each member takes his/her turn, presenting a single idea until all ideas have been presented & recorded. No discussion takes place untill all ideas have been recorded. 3. The group now discusses the ideas for clarity & evaluates them. 4. Each member silently & independently rank-orders the ideas. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Decision-Making Decision-Making Techniques Techniques Brainstorming An idea-generation process that specifically encourages any and all alternatives, while withholding any criticism of those alternatives. Rules of Brainstorming: Do not criticize ideas. Provide as many ideas as possible. Say all ideas that come to mind, no matter how wild. Combine & improve ideas suggested by others. Electronic Meeting A meeting in which members interact on computers, allowing for anonymity of comments and aggregation of votes. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Evaluating Evaluating Group Group Effectiveness Effectiveness TYPE OF GROUP Effectiveness Criteria Interacting Brainstorming Nominal Electronic Number and quality of ideas Low Moderate High High Social pressure High Low Moderate Low Money costs Low Low Low High Speed Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Task orientation Low High High High Potential for interpersonal conflict High Low Moderate Low Commitment to solution High Not applicable Moderate Moderate Development of High High Moderate Low group cohesiveness E X H I B I T 9–9 E X H I B I T 9–9 © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Chapter Check-Up: Groups True or False: The Punctuated Equilibrium Model suggests that groups have an equilibrium, but that equilibrium will be punctuated at the half-way point. But, after the punctuation, the group will return to the equilibrium it had prior to the punctuation. FALSE. The first part is true, but the second sentence is false. After the punctuation, the group will have a new equilibrium of increased productivity. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Chapter Check-Up: Groups List 2 drawbacks of brainstorming and 2 plusses of the Nominal Group Decision Making Technique. Compare your answers with your neighbor, and discuss which one you would use for a group project in this class and why. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Chapter Check-Up: Groups Lorraine is a non-traditional student (she’s 51 years old) and is working in a group for a class project. They keep turning to her for the answers to questions. Which of the following might the group have that is driving Lorraine’s experience? Groupthink Groupshift Role Conflict Role Expectations The group may have role expectations of Lorraine--- e.g., because she’s older, that she should be the wise one and know the answers like a parent should. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.  Group Group Norms Norms && The The Hawthorne Hawthorne Studies Studies  A series of studies undertaken by Elton Mayo at Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago between 1924 and 1932.  Research Conclusions: – Worker behavior and sentiments were closely related. – Group influences (norms) were significant in affecting individual behavior. – Group standards (norms) were highly effective in establishing individual worker output. – Money was less a factor in determining worker output than were group standards, sentiments, and security. © 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.