Group Cohesion and Climate (PDF)

Chapter 7 When something is cohesive, it sticks together, and the cohesion within a group helps establish an overall group climate. Group climate refers to the relatively enduring tone and quality of group interaction that is experienced similarly by group members. To better understand cohesion and...

Chapter 7 When something is cohesive, it sticks together, and the cohesion within a group helps establish an overall group climate. Group climate refers to the relatively enduring tone and quality of group interaction that is experienced similarly by group members. To better understand cohesion and climate, we can examine two types of cohesion: task and social. Task cohesion refers to the commitment of group members to the purpose and activities of the group. Social cohesion refers to the attraction and liking among group members. Ideally, groups would have an appropriate balance between these two types of cohesion relative to the group’s purpose, with task-oriented groups having higher task cohesion and relational-oriented groups having higher social cohesion. Even the most task-focused groups need some degree of social cohesion, and vice versa, but the balance will be determined by the purpose of the group and the individual members. For example, a team of workers from the local car dealership may join a local summer softball league because they’re good friends and love the game. They may end up beating the team of faculty members from the community college who joined the league just to get to know each other better and have an excuse to get together and drink beer in the afternoon. In this example, the players from the car dealership exhibit high social and task cohesion, while the faculty exhibit high social but low task cohesion. Cohesive groups have an appropriate balance between task and social cohesion. (Credit: Brooke Cagle Links to an external site. /Unsplash) Cohesion benefits a group in many ways and can be assessed through specific group behaviors and characteristics. Groups with an appropriate level of cohesiveness (Hargie, 2011): set goals easily; exhibit a high commitment to achieving the purpose of the group; are more productive; experience fewer attendance issues; have group members who are willing to stick with the group during times of difficulty; have satisfied group members who identify with, promote, and defend the group; have members who are willing to listen to each other and offer support and constructive criticism; and experience less anger and tension. Appropriate levels of group cohesion usually create a positive group climate, since group climate is affected by members’ satisfaction with the group. Climate has also been described as group morale. The following are some qualities that contribute to a positive group climate and morale (Marston & Hecht, 1988): Participation. Group members feel better when they feel included in the discussion and a part of the functioning of the group. Messages. Confirming messages help build relational dimensions within a group, and clear, organized, and relevant messages help build task dimensions within a group. Feedback. Positive, constructive, and relevant feedback contribute to the group climate. Equity. Aside from individual participation, group members also like to feel as if participation is managed equally within the group and that appropriate turn-taking is used. Clear and accepted roles. Group members like to know how status and hierarchy operate within a group. Knowing the roles isn’t enough to lead to satisfaction, though—members must also be comfortable with and accept those roles. Motivation. Member motivation is activated by perceived connection to and relevance of the group’s goals or purpose. Group cohesion and climate are also demonstrated through symbolic convergence (Bormann, 1985). Have you ever been in a group that had ‘inside jokes’ that someone outside the group just would not understand? Symbolic convergence refers to the sense of community or group consciousness that develops in a group through non-task-related communication such as stories and jokes. The originator of symbolic convergence theory, Ernest Bormann, claims that the sharing of group fantasies creates symbolic convergence. Fantasy, in this sense, doesn’t refer to fairy tales, sexual desire, or untrue things. In group communication, group fantasies are verbalized references to events outside the “here and now” of the group, including references to the group’s past, predictions for the future, or other communication about people or events outside the group (Griffin, 2009). For example, as a graduate student, I spent a lot of time talking with others in our small group about research, writing, and other things related to our classes and academia in general. Most of this communication wouldn’t lead to symbolic convergence or help establish the strong social bonds that we developed as a group. Instead, it was our grad student “war stories” about excessive reading loads and unreasonable paper requirements we had experienced in earlier years of grad school, horror stories about absent or vindictive thesis advisors, and “you won’t believe this” stories from the classes that we were teaching that brought us together. As symbolic convergence theory suggests, non-task-related communication such as stories, jokes, or shared experiences can actually be valuable for groups. In any group, you can tell when symbolic convergence is occurring by observing how people share such fantasies and how group members react to them. If group members react positively and agree with or appreciate the teller’s effort or other group members are triggered to tell their own related stories, then convergence is happening and cohesion and climate are being established. Over time, these fantasies build a shared vision of the group and what it means to be a member that creates a shared group consciousness. By reviewing and applying the concepts in this section, you can hopefully identify potential difficulties with group cohesion and work to enhance cohesion when needed to create more positive group climates and enhance your future group interactions. Supportive and Defensive Group Climates Communication is key to developing positive group climates. This requires groups to attend to the supportive and defensive communication behaviors taking place in their groups. Defensive communication is defined as that communication behavior that occurs when an individual perceives threat or anticipates threat in the group. Those who behave defensively, even though they also give some attention to the common task, devote an appreciable portion of energy to defending themselves. Besides talking about the topic, they think about how they appear to others, how they may be seen more favorably, how they may win, dominate, impress or escape punishment, and/or how they may avoid or mitigate a perceived attack. Such inner feelings and outward acts tend to create similarly defensive postures in others; and, if unchecked, the ensuing circular response becomes increasingly destructive. Defensive communication behavior, in short, engenders defensive listening, and this, in turn, produces postural, facial, and verbal cues which raise the defense level of the original communicator. Defense arousal prevents the listener from concentrating upon the message. Not only do defensive communicators send off multiple value, motive, and affect cues, but also defensive recipients distort what they receive. As a person becomes more and more defensive, he or she becomes less and less able to perceive accurately the motives, values, and emotions of the sender. Defensive behaviors have been correlated positively with losses in efficiency in communication. The converse, moreover, also is true. The more “supportive” or defense-reductive the climate, the less the receiver reads into the communication distorted loadings that arise from projections of their own anxieties, motives, and concerns. As defenses are reduced, the receivers become better able to concentrate upon the structure, the content, and the cognitive meanings of the message. Jack Gibb (1961) developed six pairs of defensive and supportive communication categories presented below. Behavior which a listener perceives as possessing any of the characteristics listed in the left-hand column arouses defensiveness, whereas that which he interprets as having any of the qualities designated as supportive reduces defensive feelings. The degree to which these reactions occur depends upon the person’s level of defensiveness and the general climate in the group at the time. Table 1: Communication in Defensive vs. Supportive Climates Defensive Climates Supportive Climates 1. Evaluation 1. Description 2. Control 2. Problem Orientation 3. Strategy 3. Spontaneity 4. Neutrality 4. Empathy 5. Superiority 5. Equality 6. Certainty 6. Provisionalism Evaluation and Description Speech or other behavior which appears evaluative increases defensiveness. If by expression, manner of speech, tone of voice, or verbal content the sender seems to be evaluating or judging the listener, the receiver goes on guard. Of course, other factors may inhibit the reaction. If the listener thought that the speaker regarded him/her as an equal and was being open and spontaneous, for example, the evaluativeness in a message would be neutralized and perhaps not even perceived. This same principle applies equally to the other five categories of potentially defense-producing climates. These six sets are interactive. Because our attitudes toward other persons are frequently, and often necessarily, evaluative, expressions that the defensive person will regard as nonjudgmental are hard to frame. Even the simplest question usually conveys the answer that the sender wishes or implies the response that would fit into his or her value system. A mother, for example, immediately following an earth tremor that shook the house, sought for her small son with the question, “Bobby, where are you?” The timid and plaintive “Mommy, I didn’t do it” indicated how Bobby’s chronic mild defensiveness predisposed him to react with a projection of his own guilt and in the context of his chronic assumption that questions are full of accusation. Anyone who has attempted to train professionals to use information-seeking speech with neutral affect appreciates how difficult it is to teach a person to say even the simple “who did that?” without being seen as accusing. Speech is so frequently judgmental that there is a reality base for the defensive interpretations which are so common. When insecure, group members are particularly likely to place blame, to see others as fitting into categories of good or bad, to make moral judgments of their colleagues, and to question the value, motive, and affect loadings of the speech which they hear. Since value loadings imply a judgment of others, a belief that the standards of the speaker differ from his or her own causes the listener to become defensive. Descriptive speech, in contrast to that which is evaluative, tends to arouse a minimum of uneasiness. Speech acts which the listener perceives as genuine requests for information or as material with neutral loadings are descriptive. Specifically, the presentation of feelings, events, perceptions, or processes which do not ask or imply that the receiver change behavior or attitude is minimally defense producing. Control and Problem Orientation Speech that is used to control the listener evokes resistance. In most of our social interactions, someone is trying to do something to someone else—to change an attitude, to influence behavior, or to restrict the field of activity. The degree to which attempts to control produce defensiveness depends upon the openness of the effort, for a suspicion that hidden motives exist heightens resistance. For this reason, attempts of non-directive therapists and progressive educators to refrain from imposing a set of values, a point of view, or a problem solution upon the receivers meet with many barriers. Since the norm is control, non-controllers must earn the perception that their efforts have no hidden motives. A bombardment of persuasive “messages” in the fields of politics, education, special causes, advertising, religion, medicine, industrial relations, and guidance has bred cynical and paranoid responses in listeners. Implicit in all attempts to alter another person is the assumption by the change agent that the person to be altered is inadequate. That the speaker secretly views the listener as ignorant, unable to make his or her own decisions, uninformed, immature, unwise, or possessed of wrong or inadequate attitudes is a subconscious perception that gives the latter a valid base for defensive reactions. Strategy and Spontaneity When the sender is perceived as engaged in a stratagem involving ambiguous and multiple motivations, the receiver becomes defensive. No one wishes to be a guinea pig, a role player, or an impressed actor, and no one likes to be the victim of some hidden motivation. That which is concealed, also, may appear larger than it really is with the degree of defensiveness of the listener determining the perceived size of the element. The intense reaction of the reading audience to the material in The Hidden Persuaders indicates the prevalence of defensive reactions to multiple motivations behind the strategy. Group members who are seen as “taking a role,” as feigning emotion, as toying with their colleagues, as withholding information, or as having special sources of data are especially resented. One participant once complained that another was “using a listening technique” on him! A large part of the adverse reaction to much of the so-called human relations training is a feeling against what are perceived as gimmicks and tricks to fool or to “involve” people, to make a person think he or she is making their own decision, or to make the listener feel that the sender is genuinely interested in him or her as a person. Particularly violent reactions occur when it appears that someone is trying to make a stratagem appear spontaneous. One person reported a boss who incurred resentment by habitually using the gimmick of “spontaneously” looking at his watch and saying “my gosh, look at the time—I must run to an appointment.” The belief was that the boss would create less irritation by honestly asking to be excused. The aversion to deceit may account for one’s resistance to politicians who are suspected of behind-the-scenes planning to get one’s vote, to psychologists whose listening apparently is motivated by more than the manifest or content-level interest in one’s behavior, or the sophisticated, smooth, or clever person whose one-upmanship is marked with guile. In training groups, the role-flexible person frequently is resented because his or her changes in behavior are perceived as strategic maneuvers. In contrast, behavior that appears to be spontaneous and free of deception is defense reductive. If the communicator is seen as having a clean id, as having uncomplicated motivations, as being straightforward and honest, as behaving spontaneously in response to the situation, he or she is likely to arouse minimal defensiveness. Neutrality and Empathy When neutrality in speech appears to the listener to indicate a lack of concern for his welfare, he becomes defensive. Group members usually desire to be perceived as valued persons, as individuals with special worth, and as objects of concern and affection. The clinical, detached, person-is-an-object-study attitude on the part of many psychologist-trainers is resented by group members. Speech with low affect that communicates little warmth or caring is in such contrast with the affect-laden speech in social situations that it sometimes communicates rejection. Communication that conveys empathy for the feelings and respect for the worth of the listener, however, is particularly supportive and defense reductive. Reassurance results when a message indicates that the speaker identifies himself or herself with the listener’s problems, shares her feelings, and accepts her emotional reactions at face value. Abortive efforts to deny the legitimacy of the receiver’s emotions by assuring the receiver that she need not feel badly, that she should not feel rejected, or that she is overly anxious, although often intended as support giving, may impress the listener as lack of acceptance. The combination of understanding and empathizing with the other person’s emotions with no accompanying effort to change him or her is supportive at a high level. The importance of gestural behavior cues in communicating empathy should be mentioned. Apparently spontaneous facial and bodily evidence of concern is often interpreted as especially valid evidence of deep-level acceptance. Superiority and Equality When a person communicates to another that he or she feels superior in position, power, wealth, intellectual ability, physical characteristics, or other ways, she or he arouses defensiveness. Here, as with other sources of disturbance, whatever arouses feelings of inadequacy causes the listener to center upon the affect loading of the statement rather than upon the cognitive elements. The receiver then reacts by not hearing the message, by forgetting it, by competing with the sender, or by becoming jealous of him or her. The person who is perceived as feeling superior communicates that he or she is not willing to enter into a shared problem-solving relationship, that he or she probably does not desire feedback, that he or she does not require help, and/or that he or she will be likely to try to reduce the power, the status, or the worth of the receiver. Many ways exist for creating the atmosphere that the sender feels himself or herself equal to the listener. Defenses are reduced when one perceives the sender as being willing to enter into participative planning with mutual trust and respect. Differences in talent, ability, worth, appearance, status, and power often exist, but the low defense communicator seems to attach little importance to these distinctions. Certainty and Provisionalism The effects of dogmatism in producing defensiveness are well known. Those who seem to know the answers, to require no additional data, and to regard themselves as teachers rather than as co-workers tend to put others on guard. Moreover, listeners often perceive manifest expressions of certainty as connoting inward feelings of inferiority. They see the dogmatic individual as needing to be right, as wanting to win an argument rather than solve a problem, and as seeing his or her ideas as truths to be defended. This kind of behavior often is associated with acts that others regarded as attempts to exercise control. People who are right seem to have a low tolerance for members who are “wrong”—i.e., who do not agree with the sender. One reduces the defensiveness of the listener when one communicates that one is willing to experiment with one’s own behavior, attitudes, and ideas. The person who appears to be taking provisional attitudes, to be investigating issues rather than taking sides on them, to be problem-solving rather than doubting, and to be willing to experiment and explore tends to communicate that the listener may have some control over the shared quest or the investigation of the ideas. If a person is genuinely searching for information and data, he or she does not resent help or company along the way. Chapter 8 Definitions of Conflict Hocker and Wilmot (2001) defined conflict as an expressed struggle between interdependent parties over goals which they perceive as incompatible or resources which they perceive to be insufficient. Let’s examine the ingredients in their definition. First of all, conflict must be expressed. If two members of a group dislike each other or disagree with each other’s viewpoints but never show those sentiments, there’s no conflict. Second, conflict takes place between or among parties who are interdependent—that is, who need each other to accomplish something. If they can get what they want without each other, they may differ in how they do so, but they won’t come into conflict. Finally, conflict involves clashes over what people want or over the means for them to achieve it. Party A wants X, whereas party B wants Y. If they either can’t both have what they want at all, or they can’t each have what they want to the degree that they would prefer to, conflict will arise. The Positive and Negative Sides of Conflict There are some circumstances in which a moderate amount of conflict can be helpful. For example, conflict can stimulate innovation and change. Conflict can help individuals and group members grow and develop self-identities. As noted by Coser (1956): Conflict, which aims at a resolution of tension between antagonists, is likely to have stabilizing and integrative functions for the relationship. By permitting immediate and direct expression of rival claims, such social systems are able to readjust their structures by eliminating their sources of dissatisfaction. The multiple conflicts which they experience may serve to eliminate the causes for dissociation and to re-establish unity. These systems avail themselves, through the toleration and institutionalization of conflict, of an important stabilizing mechanism. Conflict can have negative consequences when people divert energies away from performance and goal attainment and direct them toward resolving the conflict. Continued conflict can take a heavy toll in terms of psychological well-being. Conflict has a major influence on stress and the psychophysical consequences of stress. Finally, continued conflict can also affect the social climate of the group and inhibit group cohesiveness. While often perceived as negative, some conflicts can actually be productive. (Credit: Arisa Chattasa/Never Give Up for Boxing Links to an external site. /Unsplash) Thus, conflict can be either functional or dysfunctional depending upon the nature of the conflict, its intensity, and its duration. Indeed, both too much and too little conflict can lead to a variety of negative outcomes, as discussed above. This is shown in Figure 1. In such circumstances, a moderate amount of conflict may be the best course of action. The issue for groups, therefore, is not how to eliminate conflict but rather how to manage and resolve it when it occurs. Figure 1: The Relationship Between Conflict Intensity and Outcomes. Adapted from Brown (1986). (Credit: Rice University/OpenStax/CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) Types of Conflict Group conflicts may deal with many topics, needs, and elements. Kelly (2006) identified the following five types of conflict: First, there are conflicts of substance. These conflicts, which relate to questions about what choices to make in a given situation, rest on differing views of the facts. If Terry thinks the biology assignment requires an annotated bibliography but Robin believes a simple list of readings will suffice, they’re in a conflict of substance. Another term for this kind of conflict is “intrinsic conflict.” Conflicts of value are those in which various parties either hold totally different values or rank the same values in a significantly different order. The famous sociologist Milton Rokeach (1979), for instance, found that freedom and equality constitute values in the four major political systems of the past 100 years—communism, fascism, socialism, and capitalism. What differentiated the systems, however, was the degree to which proponents of each system ranked those two key values. According to Rokeach’s analysis, socialism holds both values highly; fascism holds them in low regard; communism values equality over freedom, and capitalism values freedom over equality. As we all know, conflict among proponents of these four political systems preoccupied people and governments for the better part of the twentieth century. Conflicts of process arise when people differ over how to reach goals or pursue values which they share. How closely should they stick to rules and timelines, for instance, and when should they let their hair down and simply brainstorm new ideas? What about when multiple topics and challenges are intertwined; how and when should the group deal with each one? Another term for these disputes is “task conflicts.” Conflicts of misperceived differences come up when people interpret each other’s actions or emotions erroneously. You can probably think of several times in your life when you first thought you disagreed with other people but later found out that you’d just misunderstood something they said and that you actually shared a perspective with them. Or perhaps you attributed a different motive to them than what really underlay their actions. One misconception about conflict, however, is that it always arises from misunderstandings. This isn’t the case, however. Robert Doolittle (1976) noted that “some of the most serious conflicts occur among individuals and groups who understand each other very well but who strongly disagree.” The first four kinds of conflict may interact with each other over time, either reinforcing or weakening each other’s impact. They may also ebb and flow according to the topics and conditions a group confronts. Even if they’re dealt with well, however, further emotional and personal kinds of conflict can occur in a group. Relationship conflicts, also known as personality clashes, often involve people’s egos and sense of self-worth. Relationship conflicts tend to be particularly difficult to cope with since they frequently aren’t admitted for what they are. Many times, they arise in a struggle for superiority or status. A Model of the Conflict Process The most commonly accepted model of the conflict process was developed by Kenneth Thomas (1976). This model consists of four stages: (1) frustration, (2) conceptualization, (3) behavior, and (4) outcome. Stage 1: Frustration As we have seen, conflict situations originate when an individual or group feels frustration in the pursuit of important goals. This frustration may be caused by a wide variety of factors, including disagreement over performance goals, failure to get a promotion or pay raise, a fight over scarce economic resources, new rules or policies, and so forth. In fact, conflict can be traced to frustration over almost anything a group or individual cares about. Stage 2: Conceptualization In stage 2, the conceptualization stage of the model, parties to the conflict attempt to understand the nature of the problem, what they themselves want as a resolution, what they think their opponents want as a resolution, and various strategies they feel each side may employ in resolving the conflict. This stage is really the problem-solving and strategy phase. For instance, when management and union negotiate a labor contract, both sides attempt to decide what is most important and what can be bargained away in exchange for these priority needs. Stage 3: Behavior The third stage in Thomas’s model is actual behavior. As a result of the conceptualization process, parties to a conflict attempt to implement their resolution mode by competing or accommodating in the hope of resolving problems. A major task here is determining how best to proceed strategically. That is, what tactics will the party use to attempt to resolve the conflict? Thomas has identified five modes for conflict resolution: (1) competing, (2) collaborating, (3) compromising, (4) avoiding, and (5) accommodating (see Table 1). The choice of an appropriate conflict resolution mode depends to a great extent on the situation and the goals of the party (see Figure 2). According to this model, each party must decide the extent to which it is interested in satisfying its own concerns—called assertiveness—and the extent to which it is interested in helping satisfy the opponent’s concerns—called cooperativeness. Assertiveness can range from assertive to unassertive on one continuum, and cooperativeness can range from uncooperative to cooperative on the other continuum. Once the parties have determined their desired balance between the two competing concerns—either consciously or unconsciously—the resolution strategy emerges. For example, if a union negotiator feels confident she can win on an issue that is of primary concern to union members (e.g., wages), a direct competition mode may be chosen (see the upper left-hand corner of Figure 2). On the other hand, when the union is indifferent to an issue or when it actually supports management’s concerns (e.g., plant safety), we would expect an accommodating or collaborating mode (on the right-hand side of the figure). Table 1 — Five Modes of Resolving Conflict Conflict-Handling Modes Appropriate Situations Source: Adapted from Thomas (1976). (Credit: Rice University/OpenStax/CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) 1. When quick, decisive action is vital—e.g., emergencies 2. On important issues where unpopular actions need Competing implementing—e.g., cost-cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline 3. On issues vital to company welfare when you know you’re right 4. Against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior 1. When trying to find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised Collaborating 2. When your objective is to learn 3. When merging insights from people with different perspectives 4. When gaining commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus 5. When working through feelings that have interfered with a relationship 1. When goals are important but not worth the effort or potential disruption of more assertive modes Compromising 2. When opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals 3. When attempting to achieve temporary settlements to complex issues 4. When arriving at expedient solutions under time pressure 5. As a backup when collaboration or competition is unsuccessful  1. When an issue is trivial, or when more important issues are pressing Avoiding 2. When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns 3. When potential disruption outweighs the benefits of resolution 4. When letting people cool down and regain perspective 5. When gathering information supersedes the immediate decision 6. When others can resolve the conflict more effectively 7. When issues seem tangential or symptomatic of other issues 1. When you find you are wrong—to allow a better position to be heard, to learn, and to show your reasonableness Accommodating 2. When issues are more important to others than yourself—to satisfy others and maintain cooperation 3. When building social credits for later issues 4. When minimizing loss when you are outmatched and losing 5. When harmony and stability are especially important. 6. When allowing subordinates to develop by learning from mistakes. What is interesting in this process is the assumptions people make about their own modes compared to their opponents’. For example, in one study of executives, it was found that the executives typically described themselves as using collaboration or compromise to resolve conflict, whereas these same executives typically described their opponents as using a competitive mode almost exclusively (Thomas & Pondy, 1967). In other words, the executives underestimated their opponents’ concerns as uncompromising. Simultaneously, the executives had flattering portraits of their own willingness to satisfy both sides in a dispute. Stage 4: Outcome Finally, as a result of efforts to resolve the conflict, both sides determine the extent to which a satisfactory resolution or outcome has been achieved. Where one party to the conflict does not feel satisfied or feels only partially satisfied, the seeds of discontent are sown for a later conflict, as shown in the preceding figure. One unresolved conflict episode can easily set the stage for a second episode. Action aimed at achieving quick and satisfactory resolution is vital; failure to initiate such action leaves the possibility (more accurately, the probability) that new conflicts will soon emerge. Recognizing Your Emotions Have you ever seen red, or perceived a situation through rage, anger, or frustration? Then you know that you cannot see or think clearly when you are experiencing strong emotions. There will be times in groups and teams when emotions run high, and your awareness of them can help you clear your mind and choose to wait until the moment has passed to tackle the challenge. This is an example of a time when avoiding can be a useful strategy, at least temporarily. Emotions can be contagious, and fear of the unknown can influence people to act in irrational ways. The wise communicator can recognize when emotions are on edge in themselves or others, and choose to wait to communicate, problem-solve, or negotiate until after the moment has passed. Bach and Wyden (1968) discuss gunnysacking Links to an external site. (or backpacking) as the imaginary bag we all carry, into which we place unresolved conflicts or grievances over time. Holding onto the way things used to be can be like a stone in your gunnysack, and influence how you interpret your current context. People may be aware of similar issues but might not know your history, and cannot see your backpack or its contents. For example, if you are used to things one way, and a group member handles them differently, this may cause you some degree of stress and frustration. Bottling up your frustrations only hurts you and can cause your relationships within the group to suffer. By addressing, or unpacking, the stones you carry, you can better assess the current situation with the current patterns and variables. Preventing and Reducing Conflict There are many things group members can do to reduce or actually solve dysfunctional conflict when it occurs. These generally fall into two categories: actions directed at conflict prevention and actions directed at conflict reduction. Strategies for Conflict Prevention We shall start by examining conflict prevention techniques because preventing conflict is often easier than reducing it once it begins. These include: 1. Emphasizing group goals and effectiveness. Focusing on group goals and objectives should prevent goal conflict. If larger goals are emphasized, group members are more likely to see the big picture and work together to achieve corporate goals. 2. Providing stable, well-structured tasks. When work activities are clearly defined, understood, and accepted, conflict should be less likely to occur. Conflict is most likely to occur when task uncertainty is high; specifying or structuring roles and tasks minimizes ambiguity. 3. Facilitating dialogue. Misperception of the abilities, goals, and motivations of others often leads to conflict, so efforts to increase the dialogue among group members and to share information should help eliminate conflict. As group members come to know more about one another, suspicions often diminish, and greater intergroup teamwork becomes possible. 4. Avoiding win-lose situations. If win-lose situations are avoided, less potential for conflict exists. Strategies for Conflict Reduction Where dysfunctional conflict already exists, something must be done, and you may pursue one of at least two general approaches: you can try to change attitudes, or you can try to behaviors. If you change behavior, open conflict is often reduced, but group members may still dislike one another; the conflict simply becomes less visible. Changing attitudes, on the other hand, often leads to fundamental changes in the ways that groups get along. However, it also takes considerably longer to accomplish than behavior change because it requires a fundamental change in social perceptions. Nine conflict reduction strategies are discussed below. The techniques should be viewed as a continuum, ranging from strategies that focus on changing behaviors near the top of the scale to strategies that focus on changing attitudes near the bottom of the scale. 1. Physical separation. The quickest and easiest solution to conflict is physical separation. Separation is useful when conflicting individuals or groups are not working on a joint task or do not need a high degree of interaction. Though this approach does not encourage members to change their attitudes, it does provide time to seek a better accommodation. 2. Use of rules and regulations. Conflict can also be reduced through the increasing specification of rules, regulations, and procedures. Again, however, basic attitudes are not modified. 3. Limiting intergroup interaction. Another approach to reducing conflict is to limit intergroup interaction to issues involving common goals. Where groups agree on a goal, cooperation becomes easier. 4. Use of integrators. Integrators are individuals who are assigned a boundary-spanning role between two people or groups. To be trusted, integrators must be perceived by both groups as legitimate and knowledgeable. The integrator often takes the “shuttle diplomacy” approach, moving from one person or group to another, identifying areas of agreement, and attempting to find areas of future cooperation. 5. Confrontation and negotiation. In this approach, competing parties are brought together face-to-face to discuss their basic areas of disagreement. The hope is that through open discussion and negotiation, means can be found to work out problems. Contract negotiations between unions and management represent one such example. If a “win-win” solution can be identified through these negotiations, the chances of an acceptable resolution of the conflict increase. 6. Third-party consultation. In some cases, it is helpful to bring in outside consultants for third-party consultation who understand human behavior and can facilitate a resolution. A third-party consultant not only serves as a go-between but can speak more directly to the issues because she is not a member of the group. 7. Rotation of members. By rotating from one group to another, individuals come to understand the frames of reference, values, and attitudes of other members; communication is thus increased. When those rotated are accepted by the receiving groups, change in attitudes as well as behavior becomes possible. This is clearly a long-term technique, as it takes time to develop good interpersonal relations and understanding among group members. 8. Identification of interdependent tasks and superordinate goals. A further strategy is to establish goals that require groups to work together to achieve overall success. 9. Use of training. The final technique on the continuum is training. Outside training experts are retained on a long-term basis to help groups develop relatively permanent mechanisms for working together. Structured workshops and training programs can help forge more favorable intergroup attitudes and, as a result, more constructive group behavior. Chapter 9 Groups may experience a variety of ‘difficult’ group members. As discussed in previous chapters, some group members take on roles that distract from the group’s tasks or make it difficult for the group to make progress. This chapter will discuss one of the most common of these in more detail — the social loafers. In this chapter, we will discuss the origins of our understanding of social loafing, its causes and effects, and what we know of variations related to culture and gender. This chapter also offers strategies for confronting and preventing social loafing. Defining Social Loafing Researcher Max Ringlemann identified social loafing in an experiment that involved participants pulling on a rope, similar to the classic game of ‘Tug of War’ (Credit: Charles Lucas/1904 Tug of War Links to an external site. /Public Domain). Social loafing describes the phenomenon that occurs when individuals exert less effort when working as a group than when working independently. Research indicates that there is some degree of social loafing within every group, whether high-functioning or dysfunctional. In 1913, a French agricultural engineer, Max Ringlemann, identified this social phenomenon. He recognized a collective group performance required less effort by individuals compared to the sum of their individual efforts (Kravitz & Martin, 1986). The effect he noted has been termed the Ringlemann Effect. In this experiment, participants pulled on a rope attached to a strain gauge. Ringlemann noted that two individuals pulling the rope only exerted 93% of their individual efforts. A group of three individuals exerted 85% and groups of eight exerted 49% of their combined individual effort. As more individuals pulled on the rope, each individual exerted themselves less. From these observations, Ringlemann determined that individuals perform below their potential when working in a group (LaFasto & Larson, 2001). Since Ringlemann’s observation, social loafing has been identified in numerous studies. Social loafing has several causes and effects that will be discussed in this document, as well as methods for dealing with social loafing to promote more effective group work. “Ringleman’s brainchild of social loafing has now been used within a diverse variety of studies, ranging from its impact on sports teams to the effects on groups within huge conglomerates” (Patel, 2002, p. 124). Causes of Social Loafing Many theories explain why social loafing occurs, below are several explanations of social loafing causes: Equitable contribution: Team members believe that others are not putting forth as much effort as themselves. Since they feel that the others in the group are slacking, they lessen their efforts too. This causes a downward cycle that ends at the point where only the minimum amount of work is performed. Submaximal goal setting: Team members may perceive that with a well-defined goal and with several people working towards it, they can work less for it. The task then becomes optimizing rather than maximizing. Lessened contingency between input and outcome: Team members may feel they can hide in the crowd and avoid the consequences of not contributing. Or, a team member may feel lost in the crowd and unable to gain recognition for their contributions (Latane, 1998). This description is characteristic of people driven by their uniqueness and individuality. In a group, they lose this individuality and the recognition that comes with their contributions. Therefore, these group members lose motivation to offer their full ability since it will not be acknowledged (Charbonnier et al., 1998). Additionally, large group sizes can cause individuals to feel lost in the crowd. With so many individuals contributing, some may feel that their efforts are not needed or will not be recognized (Kerr, 1989). Lack of evaluation: Loafing begins or is strengthened in the absence of an individual evaluation structure imposed by the environment (Price & Harrison, 2006). This occurs because working in a group environment results in less self-awareness (Mullen, 1983). For example, a member of a sales team will loaf when sales of the group are measured rather than individual sales efforts. Unequal distribution of compensation: In the workplace, compensation comes in monetary forms and promotions, and in academics, it is in the form of grades or positive feedback. If individuals believe compensation has not been allotted equally amongst group members, they will withdraw their individual efforts (Piezon & Donaldson, 2005).  Non-cohesive group: A group functions effectively when members have bonded and created high-quality relationships. If the group is not cohesive, members are more prone to social loafing since they are not concerned about letting down their teammates (Piezon & Donaldson, 2005). Effects of Social Loafing Regardless of why someone might engage in social loafing, it can negatively impact groups and individuals. (Credit: Viktor Hanacek/Man Relaxing With Legs Up Links to an external site. /Picjumbo Links to an external site. ) Social loafing engenders negative consequences that affect both the group as a whole as well as the individual. Effects on Groups As explained in the Ringlemann Effect, output decreases with increased group membership, due to social loafing. This effect is demonstrated in another study by Latane, et al. (1979). In this experiment, subjects were asked to yell or clap as loudly as possible. As in Ringlemann’s study, the overall loudness increased while individual output decreased. People averaged 3.7 dynes/sq cm individually, 2.6 in pairs, 1.8 in a group of four, and 1.5 in a group of six. In this study, there was no block effect (indicating tiredness or lack of practice). Due to social loafing, the average output for each individual decreases due to the perception that others in the group are not putting forth as much effort as the individual. In considering this first experiment, some individuals suggested that results might be invalid due to acoustics (i.e., voices canceling each other out or voices not synchronized). To disprove this theory, another experiment was performed. For this study, participants were placed in individual rooms and wore headphones. In repeated trials, these participants were told they were either shouting alone or as part of a group. The results demonstrated the same trend as in the first experiment–individual performance decreased as group size increased (Latane, 1979). In reality, there are not many groups with the objective of yelling loud, however, the example above illustrates a principle that is common in business, family, education, and in social gatherings that harms the overall integrity and performance of a team by reducing the level of output, one individual at a time. The negative social cues involved with social loafing produce decreased group performance (Schnake, 1991). Reasonable consequences of social loafing also include dissatisfaction with group members who fail to contribute equally and the creation of in-groups and out-groups. Additionally, groups will lack the talents that could be offered by those who choose to not contribute. All of these factors result in less productivity. Effects on Individuals The preceding section identifies the effect of social loafing on a group which is arguably the most prominent consequence of the group behavior. However, social loafing also has an impact on the individuals that comprise the group. There are various side effects that individuals may experience. One potential side effect is the lack of satisfaction that a member of the group might experience, thereby becoming disappointed or depressed at the end of the project. When a member of a group becomes a social loafer, the member reduces any opportunity he might have had to grow in his ability and knowledge. Today, many college-level classes focus on group projects. The ability for an individual to participate in social loafing increases as the group increases in number. However, if these groups remain small the individual will not have the opportunity to become invisible to the group and their lack of input will be readily evident. The lack of identifiability in a group is a psychological production that has been documented in several studies (Carron, Burke & Prapavessis, 2004). Social loafing can also negatively impact individuals in the group who perform the bulk of the work. For example, in schoolwork teams are often comprised of children of varying capacities. Without individual accountability, often only one or a few group members will do most of the work to make up for what the other students lack. Cheri Yecke (2004), Minnesota’s commissioner of education, explains that in these instances group work can be detrimental to the student(s) who feel resentment and frustration from carrying the weight of the work. Yecke (2004) recounted an experience of one child who felt she had to “slow down the pace of her learning and that she could not challenge the group, or she would be punished” with a lower grade than desired. Especially in situations where members of the group of differing abilities, social loafing negatively affects group members who carry the weight of the group. Variation in Social Loafing Researchers have suggested there may be variation in social loafing by culture and gender, although further research is needed. Culture Social loafing is more likely to occur in societies where the focus is on the individual rather than the group. This phenomenon was observed in a study comparing American managers (individualistic values) to Chinese managers (collectivistic values). Researchers found that social loafing occurred with the American managers while there was no such occurrence with the Chinese managers. The researchers explained this through a comparison between collectivistic and individualistic orientations. As discussed in an earlier chapter, collectivistic orientation places group goals and collective action ahead of self-interests. This reinforces the participants’ desires to pursue group goals to benefit the group. People from this orientation view their individual actions as an important contribution to the group’s well-being. They also gain satisfaction and feelings of accomplishment from group outcomes. Further, collectivists anticipate that other group members will contribute to the groups’ performance and so they choose to do the same in return. They view their contributions to group accomplishments as important and role-defined (Earley, 1989). In contrast, an individualist’s motive is focused on self-interest. Actions by these individuals emphasize personal gain and rewards based on their particular accomplishments. An individualist anticipates rewards contingent on individual performance. Contribution toward achieving collective goals is inconsistent with the self-interest motive unless differential awards are made by the group. Individuals whose contributions to group output go unnoticed have little incentive to contribute since they can “loaf” without fear of consequences. As a result, an individualist can maximize personal gain without putting forth as much effort as had he/she done the work individually. The self-interest motive stresses individual outcomes and gain over the collective good (Earley, 1989). Gender The few studies that have looked at gender and social loafing have recorded different levels of social loafing between men and women, with men more inclined to social loaf than women (Kerr, 1983, Kugihara, 1999; Stark, Shaw, & Duff, 2007). Some have suggested that due to the ways they have been socialized women tend to be more inclined to sustain group cohesion where men are more interested in task achievement. As a result, women, who deem collective tasks more significant than individual tasks, are less likely to engage in social loafing than men. This phenomenon is demonstrated in a study conducted by Naoki Kugihara (1999). To determine the social loafing effect on men versus women, he had 18 Japanese men and 18 Japanese women pull on a rope, similar to the Ringlemann experiment. On the questionnaire, several participants indicated their perception that they pulled with their full strength. However, Kugihara (1999) observed the men did decrease their effort once involved in collective rope pulling. Conversely, the women did not show a change in effort once involved collectively. Stark, Shaw, and Duff (2007) found consistent differences in social loafing by gender in both self and peer-evaluations among U.S. college students, with those identifying as women reporting lower levels of social loafing. They call for further research to understand the role of gender in social loafing. Confronting the Social Loafer No one ever likes to be confronted or told what to do. So in a group setting, what is the best way to make the most out of each individual’s contributions? Especially in groups where there is no designated leader, it is difficult for one group member to confront another. However, Rothwell (2004) offers advice for handling these situations: Private consultation: The team leader or a selected team member should consult the social loafer individually. This individual should solicit the reasons for the perceived lack of effort. Perhaps there may be more going on than may be apparent at first glance. Additionally, the loafer should be encouraged to participate and understand the importance of his or her contributions. Group discussion: The entire group can address the problem to the dissenting team member and specifically address the problem(s) they have observed. They should attempt to resolve the problem and refrain from deleterious attacks on the individual. Revisiting a group contract and making changes or adjustments to that contract may be a way to build new structures that better support the group and the individual. Superior assistance: After trying to address the problem with the individual both privately and as a group, group members should seek the advice of a superior, whether it be a teacher, boss, or another authority figure. Where possible, group members should provide documented evidence of the loafing engaged by the individual (De Vita, 2001). The person in authority can directly address the problem with the team member or serve in a mediating role between members. Exclusion: The loafer should only be booted out of the group as a last resort. However, this option may not be feasible in some instances. Circumvention: If all the above steps have been attempted without result, then the group can reorganize tasks and responsibilities. This should be done in a manner that will result in a desirable outcome whether or not the loafer contributes (Rothwell, 2004). Preventing Social Loafing To prevent or limit the effects of social loafing, there are several guidelines a team might initiate to manage team members’ efforts toward team goals. Though some do depend upon the nature of the team and the type of team, most of these guidelines can be adapted to provide a positive benefit to all teams. You will find that most of them should sound familiar by this point. Write a team contract: Confusion and miscommunication can cause social loafing. Although it may seem formal, writing a team contract is a good first step in setting group rules and preventing social loafing. This contract should include several important pieces of information such as group expectations, individual responsibilities, forms of group communication, and methods of discipline. If each group member has a measurable responsibility that they alone are accountable for, the member is not able to rely on the group for his portion of responsibility. Setting rules at the beginning will help all team members achieve the team objectives and performance goals. Establishing ground rules can help to prevent social loafing and free-riding behaviors by providing assurances that free-riding attempts will be dealt with (Cox & Brobrowski, 2000). Be sure to discuss the consequences of not following rules and the process to call an individual on their negative behavior. Create appropriate group sizes: Whenever possible, minimize the number of people within a group. The fewer people available to diffuse responsibility to, the less likely social loafing will occur. Also, do not create or allow a team to undertake a two-man job. For example, municipal maintenance crews might have crew members standing around watching one or two individuals work. Does that job really require that many crew members? Establish individual accountability: This is critical for initial assignments that set the stage for the rest of the task. Tasks that require pre-work and input from all group members produce a set of dynamics that largely prevent social loafing from happening in the first place. If this expectation is set early, individuals will avoid the consequences of being held accountable for poor work. Specifically define the task: Clarify the importance of the task to the team and assign members to do particular assignments. Establish expectations through specific measurable and observable outcomes, such as due dates. At the end of each meeting, refresh everyone’s memories as to who is required to do what by when and offer clarification on required duties. Create personal relationships: Provide opportunities for members to socialize and establish trusting relationships. Dedicated relationships cause people to fulfill their duties more efficiently. Manage discussions: Ensure that all team members have the opportunity to speak. Make every individual feel they have a valuable role on the team and their input is important to group success. Engage individuals: When intrinsic involvement in the task is high, workers may feel that their efforts are very important for the success of the group and thus may be unlikely to engage in social loafing even if the task visibility is low. Highlight achievement: Open or close meetings by summarizing members’ and the group’s successes. Create a culture that recognizes and celebrates “wins” and task accomplishments. Evaluate progress: Meet individually with team members to assess their successes and areas of improvement. Discuss ways in which the team may provide additional support so the task may be completed. When possible, develop an evaluation based on an individual contribution. This can be accomplished through individual group members’ peer evaluations of others on the team. Chapter 10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Group-Decision Making Group decision-making has the advantage of drawing from the experiences and perspectives of a larger number of individuals. Hence, the ideas have the potential to be more creative and lead to a more effective decision. In fact, groups may sometimes achieve results beyond what they could have done as individuals. Groups also make the task more enjoyable for members in question. Finally, when the decision is made by a group rather than a single individual, implementation of the decision will be easier because group members will be invested in the decision. If the group is diverse, better decisions may be made because different group members may have different ideas based on their backgrounds and experiences. Research shows that for top management teams, groups that debate issues and that are diverse make decisions that are more comprehensive and better for the bottom line in terms of profitability and sales (Simons et al., 1999). Despite its popularity within organizations, group decision-making suffers from a number of disadvantages. While groups have the potential to arrive at an effective decision, they often suffer from process losses (Miner, 1984). For example, groups may suffer from coordination problems. Anyone who has worked with a team of individuals on a project can attest to the difficulty of coordinating members’ work or even coordinating everyone’s presence in a team meeting. Furthermore, groups can suffer from social loafing, as discussed previously. Groups may also suffer from groupthink, the tendency to avoid critical evaluation of ideas the group favors, as will be discussed later in this chapter. Finally, group decision-making takes a longer time compared with individual decision-making, given that all members need to discuss their thoughts regarding different alternatives. Thus, whether an individual or a group decision is preferable will depend on the specifics of the situation. For example, if there is an emergency and a decision needs to be made quickly, individual decision-making might be preferred. Individual decision-making may also be appropriate if the individual in question has all the information needed to make the decision and if implementation problems are not expected. However, if one person does not have all the information and skills needed to make the decision, if implementing the decision will be difficult without the involvement of those who will be affected by the decision, and if time urgency is more modest, then decision-making by a group may be more effective. Methods of Making Group Decisions Research does indicate that groups generate more ideas and make more accurate decisions on matters for which a known preferred solution exists, but they also operate more slowly than individuals (Hoy et al., 1982). Under time pressure and other constraints, some group leaders exercise their power to make a decision unilaterally—alone—because they’re willing to sacrifice a degree of accuracy for the sake of speed. Sometimes this behavior turns out to be wise; sometimes it doesn’t. Assuming that a group determines that it must reach a decision together on some matter, rather than deferring to the will of a single person, it can proceed according to several methods. Parker and Hoffman (2006), along with Hartley and Dawson (2010), place decision-making procedures in several categories. Here is a synthesis of their views of how decision-making can take place: “A PLOP” A group may conduct a discussion in which members express views and identify alternatives but then reach no decision and take no action. When people go their own ways after such a “plop,” things sometimes take care of themselves, and the lack of a decision causes no difficulties. On the other hand, if a group ignores or postpones a decision that really needs attention, its members may confront tougher decisions later—some of which may deal with problems brought about by not addressing a topic when it was at an early stage. Delegation to an Expert In some cases, groups may make a decision by expert. A group may not be ready to make a decision at a given time, either because it lacks sufficient information or is experiencing unresolved conflict among members with differing views. In such a situation, the group may not want to simply drop the matter and move on. Instead, it may turn to one of its members who everyone feels has the expertise to choose wisely among the alternatives that the group is considering. The group may also turn to an outside expert, someone who is external to the group who may be able to provide guidance. The group can either ask the expert to come back later with a final proposal or simply allow the person to make the decision alone after having gathered whatever further information he or she feels is necessary. Averaging Group members may shift their individual stances regarding a question by “splitting the difference” to reach a “middle ground.” This technique tends to work most easily if numbers are involved. For instance, a group trying to decide how much money to spend on a gift for a departing member might ask everyone for a preferred amount and agree to spend whatever is computed by averaging those amounts. Voting If you need to be quick and definitive in making a decision, voting is probably the best method. Everyone in mainstream American society is familiar with the process, for one thing, and its outcome is inherently clear and obvious. A majority vote requires that more than half of a group’s members vote for a proposal, whereas a proposal subject to a two-thirds vote will not pass unless twice as many members show support as those who oppose it. Voting is essentially a win/lose activity. You can probably remember a time when you or someone else in a group composed part of a strong and passionate minority whose desires were thwarted because of the results of a vote. How much commitment did you feel to support the results of that vote? Voting does offer a quick and simple way to reach decisions, but it works better in some situations than in others. If the members of a group see no other way to overcome a deadlock, for instance, voting may make sense. Likewise, very large groups and those facing serious time constraints may see advantages to voting. Finally, the efficiency of voting is appealing when it comes to making routine or noncontroversial decisions that need only to be officially approved. Consensus Consensus is another decision-making rule that groups may use when the goal is to gain support for an idea or plan of action. While consensus tends to take longer in the first place, it may make sense when support is needed to enact the plan. The process works by discussing the issues, generating a proposal, calling for consensus, and discussing any concerns. If concerns still exist, the proposal is modified to accommodate them. These steps are repeated until consensus is reached. Thus, this decision-making rule is inclusive, participatory, cooperative, and democratic. Research shows that consensus can lead to better accuracy (Roch, 2007), and it helps members feel greater satisfaction with decisions (Mohammed & Ringseis, 2001) and to have greater acceptance. However, groups take longer with this approach, and groups that cannot reach consensus become frustrated (Peterson, 1999). While it can be challenging and time-consuming, consensus is considered to be the most ideal method of decision-making. (Clay Banks/We Are Better When We are United Links to an external site. /Unsplash) Consensus should not be confused with unanimity, which means only that no one has explicitly stated objections to a proposal or decision. Although unanimity can certainly convey an accurate perspective of a group’s views at times, groupthink, as discussed below, also often leads to unanimous decisions. Therefore, it’s probably wise to be cautious when a group of diverse people seems to have formed a totally unified bloc with respect to choices among controversial alternatives. When a consensus decision is reached through a full interchange of views and is then in good faith by all parties to a discussion, it can energize and motivate a group. Besides avoiding the win/lose elements intrinsic to voting, it converts each member’s investment in a decision into a stake in preserving and promoting the decision after it has been agreed upon. Guidelines for Seeking Consensus How can a group actually go about working toward consensus? Here are some guidelines for the process:  First, be sure everyone knows the definition of consensus and is comfortable with observing them. For many group members, this may mean suspending judgment and trying something they’ve never done before. Remind people that consensus requires a joint dedication to moving forward toward improvement in and by the group. Second, endeavor to solicit participation by every member of the group. Even the naturally quietest person should be actively “polled” from time to time for his or her perspectives. In fact, it’s a good idea to take special pains to ask for varied viewpoints when discussion seems to be stalled or contentious. Third, listen honestly and openly to each group member’s viewpoints. Attempt to seek and gather information from others. Do your best to subdue your emotions and your tendency to judge and evaluate. Fourth, be patient. Reaching consensus often takes much more time than voting would. A premature “agreement” reached because people give in to speed things up or avoid conflict is likely later to weaken or fall apart. Fifth, always look for mutually acceptable ways to make it through challenging circumstances. Don’t resort to chance mechanisms like flipping a coin, and don’t trade decisions arbitrarily just so that things come out equally for people who remain committed to opposing views. Sixth, resolve gridlock earnestly. Stop and ask, “Have we really identified every possible feasible way that our group might act?” If members of a group simply can’t agree on one alternative, see if they can all find and accept the next-best option. Then be sure to request an explicit statement from them that they are prepared to genuinely commit themselves to that option. One variation on consensus decision-making calls upon a group’s leader to ask its members, before initiating a discussion, to agree to a deadline and a “safety valve.” The deadline would be a time by which everyone in the group feels they need to have reached a decision. The “safety valve” would be a statement that any member can veto the will of the rest of the group to act in a certain way, but only if he or she takes responsibility for moving the group forward in some other positive direction. Although consensus entails full participation and assent within a group, it usually can’t be reached without guidance from a leader. One college president we knew was a master at escorting his executive team to consensus. Without coercing or rushing them, he would regularly involve them all in discussions and lead their conversations to a point at which everyone was nodding in agreement, or at least conveying acceptance of a decision. Rather than leaving things at that point, however, the president would generally say, “We seem to have reached a decision to do XYZ. Is there anyone who objects?” Once people had this last opportunity to add further comments of their own, the group could move forward with a sense that it had a common vision in mind. Consensus decision-making is easiest within groups whose members know and respect each other, whose authority is more or less evenly distributed, and whose basic values are shared. Some charitable and religious groups meet these conditions and have long been able to use consensus decision-making as a matter of principle. The Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, began using consensus as early as the 17th century. Its affiliated international service agency, the American Friends Service Committee, employs the same approach. The Mennonite Church has also long made use of consensus decision-making. Groupthink Have you ever been in a decision-making group that you felt was heading in the wrong direction, but you didn’t speak up and say so? If so, you have already been a victim of groupthink. Groupthink is a group pressure phenomenon that increases the risk of the group making flawed decisions by leading to reduced mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment. Avoiding groupthink can be a matter of life or death. In January 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds after liftoff, killing all seven astronauts aboard. The decision to launch the Challenger that day, despite problems with mechanical components of the vehicle and unfavorable weather conditions, is cited as an example of groupthink. (Credit: NASA/Challenger flight 51-l crew Links to an external site. /Public Domain) According to Janis (1972), groupthink is characterized by eight symptoms that include: 1. Illusion of invulnerability shared by most or all of the group members creates excessive optimism and encourages them to take extreme risks. 2. Collective rationalizations where members downplay negative information or warnings that might cause them to reconsider their assumptions. 3. An unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality may incline members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions. 4. Stereotyped views of out-groups are seen when groups discount rivals’ abilities to make effective responses. 5. Direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments. 6. Self-censorship is when members of the group minimize their own doubts and counterarguments. 7. Illusion of unanimity is based on self-censorship and direct pressure on the group; the lack of dissent is viewed as unanimity. 8. The emergence of self-appointed mindguards where one or more members protect the group from information that runs counter to the group’s assumptions and course of action. Groups do tend to be more likely to suffer from symptoms of groupthink when they are large and when the group is cohesive because the members like each other (Esser, 1998; Mullen et al., 1994). The assumption is that the more frequently a group displays one or more of the eight symptoms, the worse the quality of their decisions will be. However, if your group is cohesive, it is not necessarily doomed to engage in groupthink. Recommendations for Avoiding Groupthink The following are strategies for avoiding groupthink: Groups Should: Discuss the symptoms of groupthink and how to avoid them. Assign a rotating devil’s advocate to every meeting.  Invite experts or qualified colleagues who are not part of the core decision-making group to attend meetings, and get reactions from outsiders regularly and share these with the group. Encourage a culture of difference where different ideas are valued. Debate the ethical implications of the decisions and potential solutions being considered. Individuals Should: Monitor their own behavior for signs of groupthink and modify behavior if needed. Check themselves for self-censorship. Carefully avoid mindguard behaviors. Avoid putting pressure on other group members to conform. Remind members of the ground rules for avoiding groupthink if they get off track. Group Leaders Should: Break the group into two subgroups from time to time. Have more than one group work on the same problem if time and resources allow it. This makes sense for highly critical decisions. Remain impartial and refrain from stating preferences at the outset of decisions. Set a tone of encouraging critical evaluations throughout deliberations. Create an anonymous feedback channel where all group members can contribute if desired. Chapter 11 Although the steps of problem-solving and decision-making that we will discuss next may seem obvious, we often don’t think to or choose not to use them. Instead, we start working on a problem and later realize we are lost and have to backtrack. I’m sure we’ve all reached a point in a project or task and had the “OK, now what?” moment. I’ve recently taken up some carpentry projects as a functional hobby, and I have developed a great respect for the importance of advanced planning. It’s frustrating to get to a crucial point in building or fixing something only to realize that you have to unscrew a support board that you already screwed in, have to drive back to the hardware store to get something that you didn’t think to get earlier, or have to completely start over. In this section, we will discuss group problem-solving and important steps in the process. Group Problem Solving The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, but some common problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes. According to Adams and Galanes (2009), problems of all sorts have three common components: 1. An undesirable situation. When conditions are desirable, there isn’t a problem. 2. The desired situation. Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can be achieved, although solutions are not yet generated. 3. Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situations. These are things that stand in the way between the current situation and the group’s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision-making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree. Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, the number of possible solutions, group member interest in the problem, group member familiarity with the problem, and the need for solution acceptance (Adams & Galanes, 2009). 1. Task difficulty. Difficult tasks are also typically more complex. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing difficult and complex tasks to develop a shared foundational knowledge. This typically requires individual work outside of the group and frequent group meetings to share information. 2. Number of possible solutions. There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do—for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may be more creatively based. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could also entail many different types of innovation with layout and design. 3. Group member interest in problem. When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction. 4. Group familiarity with problem. Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are more unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare their house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets as funding has been cut in nearly every sector. When group members aren’t familiar with a problem, they will need to do background research on what similar groups have done and may also need to bring in outside experts. 5. Need for solution acceptance. In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much “buy-in” from others the group needs for their solution to be successfully implemented. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. When a small group is planning on building a new park in a crowded neighborhood or implementing a new policy in a large business, it can be very difficult to develop solutions that will be accepted by all. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution and may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that doesn’t have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure. Group Problem-Solving Process There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on American scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process(Bormann & Bormann, 1988). As you read through the steps in the process, think about how you can apply what you learned regarding the general and specific elements of problems. Some of the following steps are straightforward, and they are things we would logically do when faced with a problem. However, taking a deliberate and systematic approach to problem-solving has been shown to benefit group functioning and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups that do not have an established history of working together and will only be able to meet occasionally. Although a group should attend to each step of the process, group leaders or other group members who facilitate problem-solving should be cautious not to dogmatically follow each element of the process or force a group along. Such a lack of flexibility could limit group member input and negatively affect the group’s cohesion and climate. Step 1: Define the Problem Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some good questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who/what is involved? Why is it meaningful/urgent/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification? At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement. Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.” Step 2: Analyze the Problem During this step, a group should analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To fully analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to a more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2. Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. This is where brainstorming techniques to enhance creativity may be useful to the group (see earlier chapter on “Enhancing Creativity”). Again, solutions should not be evaluated at this point, only proposed and clarified. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it. It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, group members must generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink. Groups might use visualization techniques to generate ideas. Using a whiteboard to map out ideas can be a useful strategy for groups. (Credit: Christina Morillo/Woman in black coat Links to an external site. /Pexels) For the problem question previously posed, the group would need to generate solutions for all three parts of the problem included in the question. Possible solutions for the first part of the problem (How can citizens report ethical violations?) may include “online reporting sy