write a journal

Chapter9-10.pptx

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >write a journal

Organizational Behavior

Eighteenth Edition, Global Edition

Chapter 9

Foundations of Group Behavior

If this PowerPoint presentation contains mathematical equations, you may need to check that your computer has the following installed:

1) MathType Plugin

2) Math Player (free versions available)

3) NVDA Reader (free versions available)

Welcome to this Organizational Behavior course that uses the 18th edition of the textbook, Organizational Behavior by Robbins and Judge. This is considered among the most widely used OB textbooks in the world. Robbins and Judge are recognized as definitive aggregators of OB concepts, applications, and practices. The course and this book will provide you with a resource that will benefit you throughout your degree program and your professional life.

Chapter 9: Foundations of Group Behavior

Learning Objectives (1 of 2)

9.1 Distinguish between the different types of groups.

9.2 Describe the punctuated-equilibrium model of group development.

9.3 Show how role requirements change in different situations.

9.4 Demonstrate how norms exert influence on an individual’s behavior.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

Distinguish between the different types of groups.

Describe the punctuated-equilibrium model of group development.

Show how role requirements change in different situations.

Demonstrate how norms exert influence on an individual’s behavior.

Learning Objectives (2 of 2)

9.5 Show how status and size differences affect group performance.

9.6 Describe how issues of cohesiveness and diversity can be integrated for group effectiveness.

9.7 Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.

Additional objectives for this chapter.

Show how status and size differences affect group performance.

Describe how issues of cohesiveness and diversity can be integrated for group effectiveness.

Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.

Distinguish Between Different Types of Groups (1 of 5)

A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives.

Groups can be either formal or informal.

Formal groups: those defined by the organization’s structure.

Informal groups: alliances that are neither formally structured nor organizationally determined.

A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives. Groups can be either formal or informal.

Formal groups, like an airline flight crew, are those defined by the organization’s structure, with designated work assignments establishing tasks. The behaviors that one should engage in are stipulated by and directed toward organizational goals. In contrast, informal groups are alliances that are neither formally structured nor organizationally determined, but instead are natural formations in the work environment in response to the need for social contact. So, for example, three employees from different departments who regularly eat lunch together is an informal group.

Distinguish Between Different Types of Groups (2 of 5)

Social identity theory: considers when and why individuals consider themselves members of groups.

People have emotional reactions to the failure or success of their group because their self-esteem gets tied into the performance of the group.

Social identities help us understand who we are and where we fit in with people.

Why do people form groups? Our tendency to take personal pride or offense for the accomplishments of a group is the territory of social identity theory.

Social identity theory proposes that people have emotional reactions to the failure or success of their group because their self-esteem gets tied into the performance of the group. Social identities help us understand who we are and where we fit in with other people, but they can have a negative side as well.

Distinguish Between Different Types of Groups (3 of 5)

OB Poll Most People Report Drinking with Coworkers is Acceptable

Note: Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) survey of 501 individuals and how drinking is viewed in their organization at a range of workrelated activities.

Source: Based on S. M. Heathfield, “To Drink or Not to Drink: Does Alcohol Drinking Mix Safely with Work Events?,” About.com Guide, 2013, http://humanresources.about.com/od/networking/qt/drink_i3.htm.

Until now, we’ve discussed social identities primarily in a cultural context. However, the identity we may feel with respect to our organization is only one aspect of our work-related identities (see OB Poll). Within our organizations and workgroups, we can develop many identities through: (1) relational identification, when we connect with others because of our roles, and (2) collective identification, when we connect with the aggregate characteristics of our groups.

Distinguish Between Different Types of Groups (4 of 5)

Ingroups and Outgroups

Ingroup favoritism occurs when we see members of our group as better than other people, and people not in our group as all the same.

Whenever there is an ingroup, there is by necessity an outgroup, which is sometimes everyone else, but is usually an identified group known by the ingroup’s members.

Probably the biggest downside is that social identities encourage ingroup favoritism, which occurs when we see members of our ingroup as better than other people and people not in our group as all the same. Recent research suggests that people with low openness and/or low agreeableness are more susceptible to ingroup favoritism.

Whenever there is an ingroup, there is by necessity an outgroup, which is sometimes everyone else, but is usually an identified group known by the ingroup’s members. When there are ingroups and outgroups, there is often animosity between them.

One of the most powerful sources of ingroup-outgroup feelings is the practice of religion, even in the workplace. One global study, for instance, found that when groups became heavily steeped in religious rituals and discussions, they became especially discriminatory toward outgroups and aggressive if the outgroups had more resources.

Distinguish Between Different Types of Groups (5 of 5)

Social Identity Threat

Ingroups and outgroups pave the way for social identity threat, which is akin to stereotype threat.

Individuals believe they will be personally negatively evaluated due to their association with a devalued group, and they may lose confidence and performance effectiveness.

Ingroups and outgroups pave the way for social identity threat, which is akin to stereotype. With social identity threat, individuals believe they will be personally negatively evaluated due to their association with a devalued group, and they may lose confidence and performance effectiveness.

Describe the Punctuated Equilibrium Model

Exhibit 9-1 The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model

Temporary groups with deadlines don’t seem to follow the usual five-stage model. Studies indicate they have their own unique sequencing of actions (or inaction). Their first meeting sets the group’s direction. This first phase of group activity is one of inertia. A transition takes place at the end of this phase, which occurs exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time. A transition initiates major changes. A second phase of inertia follows the transition, and the group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity. This pattern, called the punctuated-equilibrium model, is shown in Exhibit 9-1.

The first meeting sets the group’s direction. A framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions emerges. These lasting patterns can appear as early as the first few seconds of the group’s life. Once set, the group’s direction is solidified and is unlikely to be reexamined throughout the first half of its life. This is a period of inertia—the group tends to stand still or become locked into a fixed course of action even if it gains new insights that challenge initial patterns and assumptions.

Then a transition takes place when the group has used up half its allotted time. The midpoint appears to work like an alarm clock, heightening members’ awareness that their time is limited and that they need to “get moving.” A transition initiates major changes. This ends Phase 1 and is characterized by a concentrated burst of changes, dropping of old patterns, and adoption of new perspectives. The transition sets a revised direction for Phase 2. Phase 2 is a new equilibrium or period of inertia. In this phase, the group executes plans created during the transition period. The group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity.

Show How Role Requirements Change (1 of 3)

Role: a set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit.

Role perception: one’s perception of how to act in a given situation.

Role expectations: how others believe one should act in a given situation.

Psychological contract

All group members are actors, each playing a role. We are required to play a number of diverse roles, both on and off our jobs. Many of these roles are compatible; some create conflicts. Different groups impose different role requirements on individuals.

Role perception refers to one’s view of how one is supposed to act in a given situation. We get these perceptions from stimuli all around us—friends, books, movies, and television. The primary reason that apprenticeship programs exist is to allow beginners to watch an “expert,” so that they can learn to act as they are supposed to.

Role expectations refers to how others believe you should act in a given situation. The psychological contract is an unwritten agreement that exists between employees and their employer. It sets out mutual expectations—what management expects from workers, and vice versa. It defines the behavioral expectations that go with every role. If role expectations as implied are not met, expect negative repercussions from the offended party.

Show How Role Requirements Change (2 of 3)

Role conflict: situation in which an individual faces divergent role expectations.

We can experience interrole conflict when the expectations of our different, separate groups are in opposition.

Role conflict: At the extreme, two or more role expectations are mutually contradictory. It exists when compliance with one role requirement may make more difficult the compliance with another.

We can experience interrole conflict when the expectations of our different, separate groups are in opposition. Within organizations, most employees are simultaneously in occupations, workgroups, divisions, and demographic groups, and these identities can conflict when the expectations of one clash with the expectations of another.

During mergers and acquisitions, employees can be torn between their identities as members of their original organization and of the new parent company.

Multinational organizations also have been shown to lead to dual identification—with the local division and with the international organization.

Show How Role Requirements Change (3 of 3)

Role Play and Assimilation

Philip Zimbardo’s prison experiment.

Participants easily and rapidly assumed roles that were very different from their inherent personalities.

One of the most illuminating role and identity experiments was done a number of years ago by Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his associates. They created a “prison” in the basement of the Stanford psychology building, hired, at $15 a day, two dozen emotionally stable, physically healthy, law-abiding students who scored “normal average” on extensive personality tests, randomly assigned them the role of either “guard” or “prisoner”, and established some basic rules.

It took little time for the “prisoners” to accept the authority positions of the “guards” and for the mock guards to adjust to their new authority roles. Consistent with social identity theory, the guards came to see the prisoners as a negative out-group, and their comments to researchers showed they had developed stereotypes about the “typical” prisoner personality type. After the guards crushed a rebellion attempt on the second day, the prisoners became increasingly passive. Whatever the guards “dished out,” the prisoners took. The prisoners actually began to believe and act as if they were inferior and powerless, as the guards constantly reminded them. And every guard, at some time during the simulation, engaged in abusive, authoritative behavior. One said, “I was surprised at myself…I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle, and I kept thinking: ‘I have to watch out for them in case they try something.’” Surprisingly, during the entire experiment—even after days of abuse—not one prisoner said, “Stop this. I’m a student like you. This is just an experiment!”

The simulation actually proved too successful in demonstrating how quickly individuals learn new roles. The researchers had to end it after only 6 days because of the participants’ pathological reactions. And remember, these were individuals chosen precisely for their normalcy and emotional stability.

What should you conclude from this prison simulation?

The participants had learned stereotyped conceptions of guard and prisoner roles from the mass media and their own personal experiences in power and powerless relationships at home.

This allowed them easily and rapidly to assume roles that were very different from their inherent personalities.

Show How Norms Exert Influence On An Individual’s Behavior (1 of 7)

Norms:

Acceptable standards of behavior within a group that are shared by the group’s members.

All groups have norms, or acceptable standards of behavior that are shared by the group’s members. Norms tell members what they ought and ought not to do under certain circumstances.

Show How Norms Exert Influence On An Individual’s Behavior (2 of 7)

Norms and Emotions

A recent study found that, in a task group, individuals’ emotions influenced the group’s emotions and vice versa.

Researchers have also found that norms dictated the experience of emotions for the individuals and for the groups – in other words, people grew to interpret their shared emotions in the same way.

All groups have norms, or acceptable standards of behavior that are shared by the group’s members.

A recent study found that, in a task group, individuals’ emotions influenced the group’s emotions and vice versa.

Researchers have also found that norms dictated the experience of emotions for the individuals and for the groups – in other words, people grew to interpret their shared emotions in the same way.

Show How Norms Exert Influence On An Individual’s Behavior (3 of 7)

Exhibit 9-2 Examples of Cards Used in Asch’s Study

There is considerable evidence that groups can place strong pressures on individual members to change their attitudes and behaviors to conform to the group’s standard. The pressure that group exerts for conformity was demonstrated by Solomon Asch.

Groups of seven or eight people were asked to compare two cards held by the experimenter, as shown in Exhibit 9-2. One card had one line; the other had three lines of varying length. Under ordinary conditions, subjects made less than one percent error. The experiment began with several sets of matching exercises. All the subjects gave the right answers. On the third set, however, the first subject gave an obviously wrong answer, the next subject gave the same wrong answer, and so did the others until it got to the unknowing subject.

The results obtained by Asch demonstrated that over many experiments and many trials, subjects conformed in about 37% of the trials; the subjects gave answers that they knew were wrong but that were consistent with the replies of other group members. Has time altered the validity of these findings of nearly 50 years ago, and are they generalizable across cultures? Yes, levels of conformity have steadily declined. Furthermore, Asch’s findings are culture-bound. Conformity to social norms is higher in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures.

Individuals conform to the important groups to which they belong or hope to belong. However, all groups do not impose equal conformity pressures on their members. Important groups are referred to as reference groups. The reference group is characterized as one where the person is aware of the others; the person defines himself or herself as a member, or would like to be a member; and the person feels that the group members are significant to him/her.

Show How Norms Exert Influence On An Individual’s Behavior (4 of 7)

Norms and Emotions

A recent study found that, in a task group, individuals’ emotions influenced the group’s emotions and vice versa.

Researchers have also found that norms dictated the experience of emotions for the individuals and for the groups – in other words, people grew to interpret their shared emotions in the same way.

Norms in the workplace significantly influence employee behavior. Experiments conducted between 1924 and 1932 by Elton Mayo at Western Electric at the company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago. The Hawthorne researchers began by examining the relationship between the physical environment and productivity. Illumination and other working conditions were selected to represent this physical environment.

The researchers’ initial findings contradicted their anticipated results. As a follow-up, the researchers began a second set of experiments in the relay assembly test room at Western Electric. Observations covering a multiyear period found this small group’s output increased steadily. It became evident this group’s performance was significantly influenced by its status as “special.” In essence, workers in both the illumination and assembly-test-room experiments were reacting to the increased attention they received.

A third study, in the bank wiring observation room, was introduced to ascertain the effect of a sophisticated wage incentive plan. The most important finding of this study was that employees did not individually maximize their outputs. Their output became controlled by a group norm that determined what was a proper day’s work.

Interviews determined the group was operating well below its capability and was leveling output to protect itself.

Members were afraid that if they significantly increased their output, the unit incentive rate would be cut, the expected daily output would be increased, layoffs might occur, or slower workers would be reprimanded.

The norms the group established included a number of “don’ts”:

Don’t be a rate-buster, turning out too much work.

Don’t be a chiseler, turning out too little work.

Don’t squeal on any of your peers.

How did the group enforce these norms?

The methods included sarcasm, name-calling, ridicule, and even punches to the upper arm of any member who violated the group’s norms.

Members also ostracized individuals whose behavior was against the group’s interest.

Show How Norms Exert Influence On An Individual’s Behavior (5 of 7)

Positive Norms and Group Outcomes

One goal of every organization with corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives is for its values to hold normative sway over employees.

If employees aligned their thinking with positive norms, these norms would become stronger and the probability of positive impact would grow exponentially.

Positive group norms may well beget positive outcomes, but only if other factors are present.

One goal of every organization with corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives is for its values to hold normative sway over employees. After all, if employees aligned their thinking with positive norms, these norms would become stronger and the probability of positive impact would grow exponentially.

We might expect the same outcomes from political correctness (PC) norms. But what is the effect of strong positive norms on group outcomes?

The popular thinking is that to increase creativity in groups, for instance, norms should be loosened. However, research on gender-diverse groups indicates that strong PC norms increase group creativity. Positive group norms may well beget positive outcomes, but only if other factors are present, too.

As powerful as norms can be, though, not everyone is equally susceptible to positive group norms. Individual personalities factor in, too, as well as the level of a person’s social identity with the group.

Show How Norms Exert Influence On An Individual’s Behavior (6 of 7)

Exhibit 9-3 Typology of Deviant Workplace Behavior

Category	Examples
Production	Leaving early
Blank	Intentionally working slowly
Blank	Wasting resources
Property	Sabotage
Blank	Lying about hours worked
Blank	Stealing from the organization
Political	Showing favoritism
Blank	Gossiping and spreading rumors
Blank	Blaming coworkers
Personal aggression	Sexual harassment
Blank	Verbal abuse
Blank	Stealing from coworkers

Sources: Based on S. H. Appelbaum, G. D. Iaconi, and A. Matousek, “Positive and Negative Deviant Workplace Behaviors: Causes, Impacts, and Solutions,” Corporate Governance 7, no. 5 (2007): 586–98; and R. W. Griffin and A. O’Leary-Kelly, The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior (New York: Wiley, 2004).

Deviant workplace behavior—also known as antisocial behavior or workplace incivility—refers to voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in doing so, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members. Exhibit 9-3 shows a typology of deviant workplace behaviors.

When deviant workplace behavior occurs, it can affect employee commitment, cooperation, and motivation. This can lead to performance issues and a lack of job satisfaction. Someone who ordinarily wouldn’t engage in deviant behavior might be more likely to do so when working in a group.

Show How Norms Exert Influence On An Individual’s Behavior (7 of 7)

Norms and Culture

Do people in collectivist cultures have different norms than people in individualist cultures? Of course they do.

But did you know that our orientation may be changed, even after years of living in one society.

Do people in collectivist cultures have different norms than people in individualist cultures? Of course they do. But did you know that our orientation may be

changed, even after years of living in one society? In a recent experiment, an organizational role-playing exercise was given to a neutral group of subjects; the exercise stressed either collectivist or individualist norms. Subjects were then given a task of their personal choice or were assigned one by an ingroup or outgroup person. When the individualist-primed subjects were allowed personal choice of the task, or the collectivist-primed subjects were assigned the task by an ingroup person, they became more highly motivated.

Show How Status and Size Differences Affect Performance (1 of 3)

Status: a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others.

Status characteristics theory: status is derived from one of three sources:

The power a person wields over others.

A person’s ability to contribute to a group’s goals.

An individual’s personal characteristics.

Status is a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others.

Status characteristics theory suggests that differences in status characteristics create status hierarchies within groups. Status is derived from one of three sources. First is the power a person wields over others. Second is a person’s ability to contribute to a group’s goals. And third is an individual’s personal characteristics.

Show How Status and Size Differences Affect Performance (2 of 3)

Status and Norms: high status individuals often have more freedom to deviate from norms.

Status and Group Interaction: high status people are often more assertive.

Status Inequity: perceived inequity creates disequilibrium and can lead to resentment and corrective behavior.

Status and Stigmatization: stigma by association.

Group Status: “us and them” mentality and ensuing polarization.

Status and norms can influence behavior in organizations. High-status members of groups often are given more freedom to deviate from norms than other group members. High-status people also are better able to resist conformity pressures. This explains why many star athletes, famous actors, top-performing salespeople, and outstanding academics seem oblivious to appearance or social norms.

Status and group interaction is influenced by status. High-status people tend to be assertive. Status differences can inhibit the diversity of ideas and creativity. Moreover, lower-status members tend to be less active.

When status inequity is perceived, it creates disequilibrium that results in corrective behavior. Hierarchical groups can lead to resentment among those at the lower end of the status continuum. Large differences in status within groups is also associated with poorer individual performance, lower health, and higher intentions to leave the group. Managers who occupy central positions in their social networks are typically seen as higher in status by their subordinates, and this position translates into greater influence over the group’s functioning.

Finally, the status of the people with whom you are affiliated can affect how others view you. Studies have shown that people who are stigmatized against can “infect” others with their stigma. This “stigma by association” effect can result in negative opinions and evaluations of the person affiliated with the stigmatized individual.

Show How Status and Size Differences Affect Performance (3 of 3)

Group size affects the group’s overall behavior.

Large groups are good for gaining diverse input.

Smaller groups are better doing something with input.

Social loafing: the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than alone.

The size of a group affects the group’s overall behavior, but the effect depends on the dependent variables. Large groups of a dozen or more members are good for gaining diverse input. Smaller groups of about seven members are better at doing something productive with that input.

One of the most important findings about the size of a group concerns social loafing, or the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than alone.

Integrating Cohesiveness and Diversity for Group Effectiveness (1 of 2)

Exhibit 9-4 Relationship Between Group Cohesiveness, Performance Norms, and Productivity

Groups differ in their cohesiveness, or the degree to which members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group. Cohesiveness is important because it’s related to the group’s productivity. As shown here in Exhibit 9-4, the relationship of cohesiveness and productivity depends on the performance-related norms established by the group. If performance-related norms are high, a cohesive group will be more productive. If cohesiveness is high and performance norms are low, productivity will be low.

Encourage group cohesiveness by:

Making the group smaller

Encouraging agreement with group goals

Increasing the time members spend together

Increasing the status of the group and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership in the group

Stimulating competition with other groups

Giving rewards to the group rather than to individual members

Physically isolating the group

Integrating Cohesiveness and Diversity for Group Effectiveness (2 of 2)

Diversity: degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one another.

Increases group conflict, especially in the short term.

Culturally and demographically diverse groups may perform better over time.

May help them be more open-minded and creative.

Faultlines

Diversity in the group’s membership is the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one another. A great deal of research is being done on how diversity influences group performance. Some studies look at cultural diversity and some at racial, gender, and other differences.

Overall, studies identify both benefits and costs from group diversity. Diversity appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early stages of a group’s tenure, which often lowers group morale and raises dropout rates. Teams in which members’ values or opinions differ tend to experience more conflict, but leaders who can get the group to focus on the task at hand and encourage group learning are able to reduce these conflicts and enhance discussion of group issues.

It seems diversity can be bad for performance even in creative teams, but appropriate organizational support and leadership might offset these problems. If members can weather their differences over time, diversity may help them be more open-minded and creative, and to do better.

One possible side effect in diverse teams—especially those that are diverse in terms of surface-level characteristics—is faultlines, or perceived divisions that split groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as sex, race, age, work experience, and education.

Group Decision Making (1 of 8)

Strengths of group decision making:

More complete information and knowledge

Increased diversity of views

Increased acceptance of solutions

Weaknesses of group decision making:

Time consuming

Conformity pressures

Dominance of a few members

Ambiguous responsibility

Are group decisions better than those made by individuals alone? The strengths of group decision making include: more complete information and knowledge, increased diversity of views, and increased acceptance of a solution. The weaknesses of group decision making include: the fact that it’s more time consuming; there are conformity pressures; one or a few members can dominate group discussion; and responsibility can be ambiguous.

Group Decision Making (2 of 8)

Effectiveness and efficiency of group decisions:

Accuracy

Speed

Creativity

Acceptance

Are groups more effective and efficient at making decisions than individuals? The answer depends on how effectiveness is defined.

Group decisions can be more accurate than the decisions of the average individual in the group, but less accurate than the judgments of the most accurate. Individuals are quicker at making decisions, but groups can be more creative and may be better at accepting the final solution.

In summary, groups offer an excellent vehicle for performing many of the steps in the decision-making process. They are a source of both breadth and depth of input for information gathering. When the final solution is agreed upon, there are more people in a group decision to support and implement it. Group decisions consume time, create internal conflicts, and generate pressures toward conformity.

Group Decision Making (3 of 8)

Groupthink: situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views.

Groupshift: a change between a group’s decision and an individual decision that a member within the group would make.

Groupthink is related to norms and affects decision making. It describes situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views. Groupthink is a disease that attacks many groups and can dramatically hinder performance.

Groupshift, also known as group polarization, describes the way of discussing a given set of alternatives and arriving at a solution whereby group members tend to exaggerate the initial positions they hold. Groups generally shift toward a more extreme version of the group’s original position.

Group Decision Making (4 of 8)

Most group decision making takes place in interacting groups.

Members meet face-to-face and rely on both verbal and nonverbal interaction to communicate with each other.

Interacting groups often censor themselves and pressure individual members toward conformity of opinion.

Most group decision making takes place in interacting groups. In these groups, members meet face-to-face and rely on both verbal and nonverbal interaction to communicate with each other. Interacting groups often censor themselves and pressure individual members toward conformity of opinion.

Group Decision Making (5 of 8)

Brainstorming can overcome pressures for conformity.

In a brainstorming session:

The group leader states the problem.

Members then “free-wheel” as many alternatives as they can.

No criticism is allowed.

One idea stimulates others, and group members are encouraged to “think the unusual.”

Brainstorming and the nominal group technique (discussed in the next slide) can reduce problems inherent in the traditional interacting group. Brainstorming is meant to overcome pressures for conformity in the interacting group that dampens the development of creative alternatives. In a typical brainstorming session, a half dozen to a dozen people sit around a table, the group leader states the problem clearly, and members then “free-wheel” as many alternatives as they can in a given length of time. No criticism is allowed, and all the alternatives are recorded for later discussion and analysis. One idea stimulates others, and group members are encouraged to “think the unusual.”

Group Decision Making (6 of 8)

The nominal group technique: restricts discussion or interpersonal communication during the decision making process.

Group members are all physically present, but members operate independently.

Permits the group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking, as does the interacting group.

Nominal groups outperform brainstorming groups.

The nominal group technique is different. It restricts discussion or interpersonal communication during the decision-making process. Group members are all physically present, but members operate independently.

The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits the group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking, as does the interacting group.

Research shows that the nominal group is generally more effective than the brainstorming group.

Group Decision Making (7 of 8)

Steps for a nominal group:

Each member independently writes down his/her ideas on the problem.

After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group.

The ideas are discussed for clarity.

Each group member rank-orders the ideas.

The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.

Here are the steps in the nominal group technique. First, a problem is presented, and then each member independently writes down his or her ideas on the problem. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. Each member takes his or her turn. The group now discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them. Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.

Group Decision Making (8 of 8)

Exhibit 9-5 Evaluating Group Effectiveness

Blank	Blank	Type of Group	Blank
Effectiveness Criteria	Interacting	Brainstorming	Nominal
Number and quality of ideas	Low	Moderate	High
Social pressure	High	Low	Moderate
Money costs	Low	Low	Low
Speed	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate
Task orientation	Low	High	High
Potential for interpersonal conflict	High	Low	Moderate
Commitment to solution	High	Not applicable	Moderate
Development of group cohesiveness	High	High	Moderate

Exhibit 9-5 shows that each of the group-decision techniques has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. The choice depends on what criteria you want to emphasize and the cost-benefit trade-off.

Implications for Managers (1 of 2)

Recognize that groups can have a dramatic impact on individual behavior in organizations, to either positive or negative effect. Therefore, pay special attention to roles, norms, and cohesion—to understand how these are operating within a group is to understand how the group is likely to behave.

To decrease the possibility of deviant workplace activities, ensure that group norms do not support antisocial behavior.

We can draw several implications from our discussion of groups. First, norms control behavior by establishing standards of right and wrong. Second, status inequities create frustration and can adversely influence productivity and willingness to remain with an organization. Third, the impact of size on a group’s performance depends on the type of task. Fourth, cohesiveness may influence a group’s level of productivity, depending on the group’s performance-related norms. Fifth, diversity appears to have a mixed impact on group performance, with some studies suggesting that diversity can help performance and others suggesting it can hurt it. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced tension and job dissatisfaction.

Managers should:

To decrease the possibility of deviant workplace activities, ensure that group norms do not support antisocial behavior.

Implications for Managers (2 of 2)

Pay attention to the status aspect of groups. Because lower-status people tend to participate less in group discussions, groups with high status differences are likely to inhibit input from lower-status members and reduce their potential.

Use larger groups for fact-finding activities and smaller groups for action-taking tasks. With larger groups, provide measures of individual performance.

To increase employee satisfaction, make certain people perceive their job roles accurately.

In addition:

Pay attention to the status aspect of groups. Because lower-status people tend to participate less in group discussions, groups with high-status differences are likely to inhibit input from lower-status members and reduce their potential.

Use larger groups for fact-finding activities and smaller groups for action-taking tasks. With larger groups, provide measures of individual performance.

To increase employee satisfaction, make certain people perceive their job roles accurately.

Learning Objectives (1 of 2)

9.1 Distinguish between the different types of groups.

9.2 Describe the punctuated-equilibrium model of group development.

9.3 Show how role requirements change in different situations.

9.4 Demonstrate how norms exert influence on an individual’s behavior.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

Distinguish between the different types of groups.

Describe the punctuated-equilibrium model of group development.

Show how role requirements change in different situations.

Demonstrate how norms exert influence on an individual’s behavior.

Learning Objectives (2 of 2)

9.5 Show how status and size differences affect group performance.

9.6 Describe how issues of cohesiveness and diversity can be integrated for group effectiveness.

9.7 Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.

Additional objectives for this chapter.

Show how status and size differences affect group performance.

Describe how issues of cohesiveness and diversity can be integrated for group effectiveness.

Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.

Questions?

Organizational Behavior

Eighteenth Edition, Global Edition

Chapter 10

Understanding Work Teams

If this PowerPoint presentation contains mathematical equations, you may need to check that your computer has the following installed:

1) MathType Plugin

2) Math Player (free versions available)

3) NVDA Reader (free versions available)

Chapter 10: Understanding Work Teams

Learning Objectives

10.1 Analyze the continued popularity of teams in organizations.

10.2 Contrast groups and teams.

10.3 Contrast the five types of team arrangements.

10.4 Identify the characteristics of effective teams.

10.5 Explain how organizations can create team players.

10.6 Decide when to use individuals instead of teams.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

Analyze the continued popularity of teams in organizations.

Contrast groups and teams.

Contrast the five types of team arrangements.

Identify the characteristics of effective teams.

Explain how organizations can create team players.

Decide when to use individuals instead of teams.

Analyze the Growing Popularity of Teams in Organizations

Why are teams popular?

Teams can achieve feats an individual could never accomplish.

Teams are flexible and responsive to changing events.

They can quickly assemble, deploy, refocus, and disband.

They are an effective means to democratize organizations and increase employee involvement.

They introduce a collaborative mindset.

Why are teams popular? In short, because we believe they are effective.

Teams can sometimes achieve feats an individual could never accomplish.

Teams are more flexible and responsive to changing events than traditional departments or other forms of permanent groupings.

They can quickly assemble, deploy, refocus, and disband.

They are an effective means to democratize organizations and increase employee involvement.

And finally, research indicates that our involvement in teams positively shapes the way we think as individuals, introducing a collaborative mindset about even our personal decision making. The fact that organizations have embraced teamwork doesn’t necessarily mean teams are always effective. Team members, as humans, can be swayed by fads and herd mentality that can lead them astray from the best decisions.

Differences Between Groups and Teams

Exhibit 10-1 Comparing Workgroups and Work Teams from

Groups and teams are not the same thing. Exhibit 10-1 shows that a work group interacts primarily to share information and make decisions to help members perform within his or her area of responsibility. In contrast, a work team generates positive synergy through coordinated effort. Individual efforts result in a level of performance that is greater than the sum of those individual inputs.

Contrast the Five Types of Teams

Exhibit 10-2 Four Types of Teams

Exhibit 10-2 identifies four common types of teams. In addition, we’ll also describe multiteam systems.

First are problem-solving teams. In the past, teams were typically composed of 5–12 hourly employees from the same department who met for a few hours each week to discuss ways of improving quality, efficiency, and the work environment. These problem-solving teams rarely had the authority to implement their suggested actions.

Self-managed teams are groups of employees who perform highly related or interdependent jobs and take on many of the responsibilities of supervisors.

Cross-functional teams are made up of employees from about the same hierarchical level but different work areas, who come together to accomplish a task.

Virtual teams use computer technology to tie together physically dispersed members in order to achieve a common goal.

Finally, multiteam systems are collections of two or more interdependent teams that share a superordinate goal – they are a team of teams.

Identify the Characteristics of Effective Teams (1 of 6)

Exhibit 10-3 Team Effectiveness Model

Exhibit 10-3 summarizes what we know about what makes teams effective. There are a few caveats. First, teams differ in form and structure. The model attempts to generalize across all types of teams, but avoids rigidly applying its predictions to all teams. Second, the model assumes that teamwork is preferable to individual work. Third, consider what team effectiveness means in this model. Typically, team effectiveness includes objective measures of the team’s productivity, managers’ ratings of the team’s performance, and aggregate measures of member satisfaction.

Identify the Characteristics of Effective Teams (2 of 6)

Team Context: What factors determine whether teams are successful?

Adequate Resources

Leadership and Structure

Climate of Trust

Performance Evaluations and Rewards

What factors determine whether teams are successful? There are four contextual factors that are most significant to team performance.

First, adequate resources are needed. All work teams rely on resources outside the group to sustain it. A scarcity of resources directly reduces the ability of the team to perform its job effectively.

Second, leadership and structure must be present. Teams can’t function if they can’t agree on who is to do what and ensure all members share the workload. Leadership is especially important in multiteam systems, in which different teams coordinate their efforts to produce a desired outcome.

Third, a climate of trust must be created. Members of effective teams trust each other and exhibit trust in their leaders. When members trust each other, they are more willing to take risks and are more willing to commit to their leader’s goals and decisions.

Finally, a performance evaluation and reward system must be in place. Individual performance evaluations and incentives may not be consistent with the development of high-performance teams. In addition to evaluating and rewarding employees for their individual contributions, management should modify the traditional, individually oriented evaluation and reward system to reflect team performance and focus on hybrid systems that recognize individual members for their exceptional contributions and reward the entire group for positive outcomes. Management should consider group-based appraisals, profit sharing, gainsharing, small-group incentives, and other system modifications that will reinforce team effort and commitment.

Identify the Characteristics of Effective Teams (3 of 6)

Team Composition: How should teams be staffed?

Abilities of members

Personality

Allocating roles

Diversity

Organizational demography

Cultural differences

Size of teams

Member preferences

Factors to consider when staffing a team are the abilities of members, personalities, allocating roles, diversity, team size, and member preferences. Let’s look at each of these, beginning with abilities of members.

Part of a team’s performance depends on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of its individual members. Research reveals that when the task entails considerable thought, such as solving a complex problem like reengineering an assembly line, high-ability teams, composed of mostly intelligent members, do better than lower-ability teams, especially when the workload is distributed evenly. The ability of the team’s leader also matters. Smart team leaders help less-intelligent team members when they struggle with a task. But a less-intelligent leader can neutralize the effect of a high-ability team.

Second is personality of members. Many of the dimensions identified in the Big Five personality model have shown to be relevant to team effectiveness. Teams that rate higher on mean levels of conscientiousness and openness to experience tend to perform better, and the minimum level of team member agreeableness also matters. Teams did worse when they had one or more highly disagreeable members.

Third is allocating roles. Teams have different needs, and people should be selected for a team to ensure that there is diversity and that all various roles are filled. Managers need to understand the individual strengths that each person can bring to a team, select members with their strengths in mind, and allocate work assignments accordingly. Put your most able, experienced, and conscientious workers in the most central roles in a team.

Fourth is the diversity of members. Many of us hold the optimistic view that diversity should be a good thing – diverse teams should benefit from differing perspectives and do better. Diversity in function and expertise are positively related to group performance, but these effects are quite small and depend on the situation. Proper leadership can improve the performance of diverse teams. When leaders provide an inspirational common goal for members with varying types of education and knowledge, teams are very creative. Cultural diversity does seem to be an asset for tasks that call for a variety of viewpoints, but culturally heterogeneous teams have more difficulty learning to work with each other and solving problems. The good news is that these difficulties seem to dissipate with time.

Fifth is cultural differences. We have discussed research on team diversity in race or gender. But what about diversity created by national differences? Like the earlier research, evidence here indicates these elements of diversity interfere with team processes, at least in the short term. Cultural diversity does seem to be an asset for tasks that call for a variety of viewpoints. But culturally heterogeneous teams have more difficulty learning to work with each other and solving problems. The good news is that these difficulties seem to dissipate with time. Although newly formed culturally diverse teams underperform newly formed culturally homogeneous teams, the differences disappear after about 3 months.

When it comes to the size of teams, most experts agree that keeping teams small is a key to improving group effectiveness. In general, the most effective teams have five to nine members. When teams have excess members, cohesiveness and mutual accountability decline, social loafing increases, and more people communicate less.

Finally, we come to the issue of member preferences. Not every employee is a team player. Given the option, many employees will select themselves out of team participation. High performing teams are likely to be composed of people who prefer working as part of a group.

Identify the Characteristics of Effective Teams (4 of 6)

Exhibit 10-4 Key Roles of Teams

Nine roles of potential teams members are shown in Exhibit 10-4 above.

Identify the Characteristics of Effective Teams (5 of 6)

Exhibit 10-5 Effects of Group Processes

The final category related to team effectiveness is process variables, such as member commitment to a common purpose, establishment of specific team goals, team efficacy, team identity, team cohesion, mental models, a managed level of conflict, and minimized social loafing. These will be especially important in larger teams, and in teams that are highly interdependent. Why are processes important to team effectiveness? When each member’s contribution is not clearly visible, individuals tend to decrease their effort – social loafing is a prime example of this.

Exhibit 10-5 illustrates how group processes can have an impact on a group’s actual effectiveness.

Identify the Characteristics of Effective Teams (6 of 6)

Team Processes

Common Plan and Purpose

Reflexivity

Specific Goals

Team Efficacy

Team Identity

Team Cohesion

Mental Models

Conflict Levels

Social Loafing

The team process begin with a common plan and purpose. Effective teams begin by analyzing the team’s mission, developing goals to achieve that mission, and creating strategies for achieving the goals. Teams that establish a clear sense of what needs to be done and how consistently perform better. Effective teams show reflexivity, meaning they reflect on and adjust their master plan when necessary.

Second, successful teams translate their common purpose into specific, measurable, and realistic performance goals. Specific goals energize the team, facilitate clear communication, and help teams maintain their focus on results. Team goals should be challenging.

Effective teams have confidence in themselves and believe they can succeed—this is team efficacy. Management can increase team efficacy by helping the team to achieve small successes and skill training. Small successes build team confidence. The greater the abilities of team members, the greater the likelihood that the team will develop confidence and the capability to deliver that confidence.

By recognizing individuals’ specific skills and abilities, as well as creating a climate of respect and inclusion, leaders and members can foster positive team identity and improved team outcomes. The term team cohesion means members are emotionally attached to one another and motivated toward the team because of their attachment.

Effective teams share accurate mental models—organized mental representations of the key elements within a team’s environment that team members share. If team members have the wrong mental models, which is particularly likely with teams under acute stress, their performance suffers. If team members have different ideas about how to do things, the team will fight over how to do things rather than focus on what needs to be done.

Conflict on a team isn’t necessarily bad. Relationship conflicts—those based on interpersonal incompatibilities, tension, and animosity toward others—are almost always dysfunctional. When teams are performing nonroutine activities, disagreements about task content (called task conflicts) stimulate discussion, promote critical assessment of problems and options, and can lead to better team decisions. Both too much and too little disagreement about how a team should initially perform a creative task can inhibit performance.

Finally, social loafing occurs when individuals hide inside a group. Effective teams undermine this tendency by making members individually and jointly accountable for the team’s purpose, goals, and approach. Members should be clear on what they are individually and jointly responsible for.

Explain How Organizations Can Create Team Players

Creating Team Players

Selecting: hire team players

Training: create team players

Rewarding: incentives to be a good team player

Many people are not inherently team players. They are loners or want to be recognized for their own accomplishments. There are also a great many organizations that have historically nurtured individual accomplishments. How do we introduce teams in highly individualistic environments? First, by selecting the right people. Be sure candidates can fulfill their team roles as well as technical requirements.

Second, create team players. Training specialists conduct exercises that allow employees to experience the satisfaction teamwork can provide. Workshops help employees improve their problem-solving, communication, negotiation, conflict-management, and coaching skills. Developing an effective team doesn’t happen overnight—it takes time.

Finally, provide rewards as incentives to be a good team player. An organization’s reward system must be reworked to encourage cooperative efforts rather than competitive ones. Promotions, pay raises, and other forms of recognition should be given to individuals who work effectively as team members by training new colleagues, sharing information, helping resolve team conflicts, and mastering needed new skills. Finally, don’t forget the intrinsic rewards, such as camaraderie, that employees can receive from teamwork. The opportunity for personal development of self and teammates can be a very satisfying and rewarding experience.

Decide When to Use Individuals Instead of Teams

When not to use teams…

Ask:

Can the work be done better by one person?

Does the work create a common goal or purpose?

Are the members of the group interdependent?

Teams are not always the answer to organizational productivity. Teamwork takes more time and often more resources than individual work. Teams have increased communication demands, conflicts to manage, and meetings to run. The benefits of using teams have to exceed the costs, and that’s not always the case. Before you rush to implement teams, carefully assess whether the work requires or will benefit from a collective effort.

How do you know whether the work of your group would be better done in teams? You can apply three tests to see whether a team fits your situation:

Can the work be done better by more than one person? A good indicator is the complexity of the work and the need for different perspectives. Simple tasks that don’t require diverse input are probably better left to individuals.

Does the work create a common purpose or set of goals for the people in the group that is more than the aggregate of individual goals? Many service departments of new-vehicle dealers have introduced teams that link customer-service people, mechanics, parts specialists, and sales representatives. Such teams can better manage collective responsibility for ensuring customer needs are properly met.

Are the members of the group interdependent? Using teams makes sense when there is interdependence between tasks—the success of the whole depends on the success of each one, and the success of each one depends on the success of the others. Soccer, for instance, is an obvious team sport. Success requires a great deal of coordination between interdependent players. Conversely, except possibly for relays, swim teams are not really teams; rather, they are groups of individuals performing individually, whose total performance is the aggregate summation of their individual performances.

Implications for Managers (1 of 2)

Effective teams have adequate resources, effective leadership, a climate of trust, and a performance evaluation and reward system that reflects team contributions. These teams have individuals with technical expertise, and the right traits and skills.

Effective teams tend to be small. They have members who fill role demands and who prefer to be part of a group.

Few trends have influenced jobs as much as the massive movement to introduce teams into the workplace. Working on teams requires employees to cooperate with others, share information, confront differences, and sublimate personal interests for the greater good of the team. Understanding the distinctions between problem solving, self-managed, cross-functional, and virtual teams as well as multiteam systems helps determine the appropriate applications for team-based work. Concepts such as reflexivity, team efficacy, team identity, team cohesion, and mental models bring to light important issues relating to team context, composition, and processes. For teams to function optimally, careful attention must be given to hiring, creating, and rewarding team players. Still, effective organizations recognize that teams are not always the best method for getting the work done efficiently. Careful discernment and an understanding of organizational behavior are needed.

Effective teams tend to be small. They have members who fill role demands and who prefer to be part of a group.

Implications for Managers (2 of 2)

Effective teams have members who believe in the team’s capabilities, are committed to a common plan and purpose, and have an accurate shared mental model of what is to be accomplished.

Select individuals who have the interpersonal skills to be effective team players, provide training to develop teamwork skills, and reward individuals for cooperative efforts.

Do not assume that teams are always needed. When tasks will not benefit from interdependency, individuals may be the better choice.

Finally,

Effective teams have members who believe in the team’s capabilities, are committed to a common plan and purpose, and have an accurate shared mental model of what is to be accomplished.

Select individuals who have the interpersonal skills to be effective team players, provide training to develop teamwork skills, and reward individuals for cooperative efforts.

Do not assume that teams are always needed. When tasks will not benefit from interdependency, individuals may be the better choice.

Learning Objectives

10.1 Analyze the continued popularity of teams in organizations.

10.2 Contrast groups and teams.

10.3 Contrast the five types of team arrangements.

10.4 Identify the characteristics of effective teams.

10.5 Explain how organizations can create team players.

10.6 Decide when to use individuals instead of teams.

After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

Analyze the continued popularity of teams in organizations.

Contrast groups and teams.

Contrast the five types of team arrangements.

Identify the characteristics of effective teams.

Explain how organizations can create team players.

Decide when to use individuals instead of teams.

Questions?