286

Foundations of Group Behavior9

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.

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 weak- nesses of group decision making.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

So ur

ce : X

u Ji

ng /X

in hu

a /A

la m

y Li

ve N

ew s

/A la

m y

S to

ck P

ho to

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 286 29/09/17 3:09 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 287

Employability Skills Matrix (ESM)

Myth or Science?

Career OBjectives

An Ethical Choice

Point/ Counterpoint

Experiential Exercise

Ethical Dilemma

Case Incident 1

Case Incident 2

Critical Thinking ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Communication ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Collaboration ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Knowledge

Application and Analysis

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Social Responsibility ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

A TALE OF TWO COPS

Imagine listening to a recording of a 911 phone call in which the caller describes two police officers drawing their weapons during a traffic stop, followed by the sound of a window shattering. If you asked two people to listen to this 911 call, would both people agree whether the officer should have drawn a gun during the phone call? The answer is maybe.

Lisa Mahon was driving with her friend, Jamal, and two children when she was pulled over by Officer Fucari for not wearing her seat belt. Lisa became uneasy when the officer, rather than running her driver’s license and plates, put her license and registration in his pocket and asked for her friend Jamal’s license. Jamal did not have his license with him, so he knelt down to grab his bag and retrieve another form of identification. Officer Fuc- ari, along with another police officer on the scene, pulled their weapons and pointed them at the car. At this point, Lisa grew concerned and called 911.

There is much debate over what happened next. After the officers drew their weapons, Officer Fucari asked both Lisa and Jamal to step out of the vehicle, but, as Lisa told the dispatcher on the 911 call, she and Jamal were scared to step out of the car. When they refused to step out of their vehicle, the officers broke the passenger side window, used a Taser on Jamal, then forcibly removed Jamal from the car. Jamal was arrested for failure to aid an officer and resisting law enforcement, while Lisa was issued a ticket for not wearing a seat belt.

MyLab Management Chapter Warm Up If your instructor has assigned this activity, go to www.pearson.com/ mylab/management to complete the chapter warm up.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 287 29/09/17 3:09 pm

288 PART 3 The Group

A video of the incident was also released to the public. After viewing the video and listening to the 911 call, many people have different interpreta- tions of what happened that day. Some individuals believe that the officers could reasonably have suspected that Jamal was reaching for a weapon and that drawing their guns was thus justified. These viewers may also believe that the officers used an acceptable amount of force in the situa- tion, given that Jamal refused to follow orders. Many other viewers, however, believe that the officers treated Lisa and Jamal differently because of their race (Lisa and Jamal are African American). They suggest that the officers were unusually suspicious of them and point out that Jamal was asked to identify himself even though he was not driving the car. In addition, many viewers believe that it was reasonable for Lisa and Jamal not to step out of the vehicle when guns were pointing at them.

Source: Based on I. Glass and B. Reed, “Cops See It Differently, Part One,” This American Life, February 6, 2015, https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/547/ transcript.

As individuals, we all belong to groups based on our occupations, race, gen-der, and many other categories. When we are part of a group, it changes our perception of the situation. In the chapter-opening vignette above, identi- fication with a racial group may make us more likely to identify with Lisa and Jamal, who were frightened by the officers’ actions and by the weapons drawn on them. If we work in law enforcement, however, we may be more likely to side with the police officers, believing that they were serving their roles as police officers by using force when a citizen did not respond to orders.

These disagreements are very common, especially in cases where a police officer used force on an African American. When speaking of relations with the African American community, Chief Ed Flynn of the Milwaukee Police Depart- ment noted that many African Americans in high-crime areas have strong antipathy toward law enforcement, partly because “the police have often been in the middle of great conflict and not infrequently been agents of social con- trol to preserve a status quo.”

Tensions between African American communities and law enforcement officers highlight one of the pitfalls of group identification. Some groups can exert a powerful positive influence, and others can create bias. The objectives of this chapter and Chapter 10 are to familiarize you with group and team concepts, provide you with a foundation for understanding how groups and teams work, and show you how to create effective working units. Let’s begin by defining a group.

Defining and Classifying Groups In organizational behavior, a group is two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives. Groups can be either formal or informal. A formal group is defined by the organization’s structure, with designated work assignments and established tasks. In formal groups, the behaviors that team members should engage in are stipulated by and directed toward organizational goals. The six members of

9-1 Distinguish between the different types of groups. group Two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 288 29/09/17 3:09 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 289

an airline flight crew are a formal group, for example. In contrast, an informal group is neither formally structured nor organizationally determined. Infor- mal groups in the work environment meet the need for social contact. Three employees from different departments who regularly have lunch or coffee together are an informal group. These types of interactions among individuals, though informal, deeply affect their behavior and performance.

Social Identity People often feel strongly about their groups, partly because, as research indi- cates, shared experiences amplify our perception of events.1 Also, according to research in Australia, sharing painful experiences, in particular, increases our felt bond and trust with others.2 Why do people form groups, and why do they feel so strongly about them? Consider the celebrations that follow when a sports team wins a national championship. The winner’s supporters are elated, and sales of team-related shirts, jackets, and hats skyrocket. Fans of the losing team feel dejected, even embarrassed. Why? Even though fans have little to do with the actual performance of the sports team, their self-image can be wrapped up in their identification with the group. Our tendency to personally invest in 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 to whatever happens to the group.3 When your group does well, you bask in reflected glory, and your own self-esteem rises. When your group does poorly, you might feel bad about yourself, or you might reject that part of your identity, similar to fair-weather fans. If your group is devalued and disrespected, your social iden- tity might feel threatened, and you might endorse deviant behaviors to restore your group’s standing.4 Social identities can even lead people to experience pleasure as a result of seeing another group suffer. We often see these feelings of schadenfreude in the joy fans experience when a hated team loses.5

People develop many identities through the course of their lives. You might define yourself in terms of the organization you work for, the city you live in, your profession, your religious background, your ethnicity, and/or your gen- der. Over time, some groups you belong to may become more significant to you than others, A U.S. expatriate working in Rome might be very aware of being from the United States, for instance, but doesn’t give national identity a sec- ond thought when transferring from Tulsa to Tucson.6 We may thus pick and

informal group A group that is neither formally structured nor organizationally deter- mined; such a group appears in response to the need for social contact.

formal group A designated work group defined by an organization’s structure.

social identity theory Perspective that considers when and why individuals consider themselves members of groups.

Jeffrey Webster, director of human resources at a Nissan plant in Missis- sippi, also serves as the director of the plant’s gospel choir. Choir mem- bers are a diverse group of employees who identify with each other because they all share a love of singing and performing for fellow workers, com- pany executives, state officials, and community events. Source: Rogelio V. Solis/AP Images

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 289 29/09/17 3:09 pm

290 PART 3 The Group

choose which of our social identities are salient to the situation, or we may find that our social identities are in conflict, such as the identities of business leader and parent.7

Our social identities help us understand who we are and where we fit in with other people, and research indicates they bring us better health and lower lev- els of depression because we become less likely to attribute negative situations to internal or insurmountable reasons.8 To experience these good outcomes, however, we need to feel that our social identities are positive.9

Until now, we’ve discussed social identities primarily in a cultural con- text. 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 work groups, 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. We can identify with groups within our team, our work group, and our organizations. Often, our identification with our work groups is stronger than with our organizations, but both are important to positive outcomes in attitudes and behaviors. The strength of our iden- tification may vary, depending on how unique a group is within an organi- zation.10 Low identification to the group may lead to problems. If we have low identification with our organizations, we may experience decreased sat- isfaction and engage in fewer organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs).11 Similarly, we are less likely to apply to organizations that do not correspond to our collective identities.12

Ingroups and Outgroups Ingroup favoritism occurs when we see members of our group as better than other people, and people not in our group as all the same. Recent research suggests that people with low openness and/or low agreeableness are more sus- ceptible to ingroup favoritism.13

ingroup favoritism Perspective in which we see members of our ingroup as better than other people, and people not in our group as all the same.

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 work- related 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.

At a holiday party

At a meal with a client or customer

At a meal during a job interview

At a meal with coworkers

At the celebration of a company milestone

At a retirement party

70%

40% 32%

28%

22% 4% 14%

Never

OB POLL

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 290 29/09/17 3:09 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 291

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. For example, if my ingroup is the Republican Party in U.S. politics, my outgroup might be anyone in the world who is not a Repub- lican, but it’s more likely to be the other U.S. political parties, or perhaps just Democrats.

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 discus- sions, they became especially discriminatory toward outgroups and aggressive if the outgroups had more resources.14 Consider an example from another study of a U.K. Muslim organization that supported Al-Qaeda and identified moder- ate U.K. Muslims as its outgroup. The Al-Qaeda ingroup was not neutral toward the moderate outgroup; instead, the ingroup denounced the moderates, deni- grating them as deviant and threatening outward aggression.15

Social Identity Threat Ingroups and outgroups pave the way for social identity threat, which is akin to stereotype threat (see Chapter 6). With social identity threat, individuals believe they will be personally negatively evaluated due to their association with a devalued group, and they may lose confidence and performance effec- tiveness. One study found, for example, that when subjects from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds took a high-pressure math test, the low-status subjects who felt social identity threat could be as confident as the high- status subjects only when they were first deliberately encouraged about their abilities.16

Stages of Group Development

outgroup The inverse of an ingroup, which can mean everyone outside the group but is more usually an identified other group.

9-2 Describe the punctuated-equilibrium model of group development.

Temporary groups with finite deadlines pass through a unique sequencing of actions (or inaction) called the punctuated-equilibrium model, shown in Exhibit 9-1. The stages in this model include the following: (1) The first meet- ing sets the group’s direction, (2) the first phase of group activity is one of iner- tia and thus slower progress, (3) a transition takes place exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time, (4) this transition initiates major changes, (5) a second phase of inertia follows the transition, and (6) the group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity.17 Alternative models suggest that teams progress through a formation stage, a conflict resolution or “storming” stage, a “norming” stage where members agree on roles and make decisions, and a “performing” stage where members begin to work collabora- tively. The forming, storming, norming, and performing stages may occur at phase one of the punctuated equilibrium model, while a second performing and conforming stage may occur in the second phase, following a short period of reforming group norms and expectations.18

punctuated-equilibrium model A set of phases that temporary groups go through that involves transitions between inertia and activity.

MyLab Management Watch It If your instructor has assigned this activity, go to www.pearson.com/ mylab/management to complete the video exercise.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 291 29/09/17 3:09 pm

292 PART 3 The Group

diverse roles, both on and off our jobs. As we’ll see, one of the tasks in under- standing behavior is grasping the role a person is currently playing.

Bill is a plant manager with EMM Industries, a large electrical equipment manufacturer in Phoenix. He fulfills a number of roles—employee, member of middle management, and electrical engineer. Off the job, Bill holds more roles: husband, father, Catholic, tennis player, member of the Thunderbird Country Club, and president of his homeowners’ association. Many of these roles are compatible; some create conflicts. How does Bill’s religious commit- ment influence his managerial decisions regarding layoffs, expense padding, and provision of accurate information to government agencies? A recent offer of promotion requires Bill to relocate, yet his family wants to stay in Phoenix. Can the role demands of his job be reconciled with the demands of his hus- band and father roles?

Different groups impose different role requirements on individuals. Like Bill, we all play a number of roles, and our behavior varies with each. But how do we know each role’s requirements? We draw on our role perceptions to frame our ideas of appropriate behaviors and to learn the expectations of our groups.

Role Perception Our view of how we’re supposed to act in a given situation is a role perception. We get role perceptions from stimuli all around us—for example, friends, books, films, and television, as when we form an impression of politicians from House of Cards. Apprenticeship programs allow beginners to watch an expert so they can learn to act as they should.

Role Expectations Role expectations are the way others believe you should act in a given context. A U.S. federal judge is viewed as having propriety and dignity, while a football coach may be seen as aggressive, dynamic, and inspiring to the players.

In the workplace, we look at role expectations through the perspective of the psychological contract: an unwritten agreement that exists between employees and employers. This agreement sets out mutual expectations.20 Management is expected to treat employees justly, provide acceptable working conditions,

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

role perception An individual’s view of how he or she is supposed to act in a given situation.

role expectations How others believe a person should act in a given situation.

Let’s discuss each stage of the punctuated-equilibrium model. At the first meeting, the group’s general purpose and direction is established and then a framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions through which the group will approach its project emerges, sometimes in the first few seconds of the group’s existence. 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.

One of the most interesting discoveries in studies was that groups experi- enced a transition precisely halfway between the first meeting and the official deadline—whether members spent an hour on their project or 6 months. The midpoint appears to work like an alarm clock, heightening members’ aware- ness that their time is limited and they need to get moving. This transition 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, a new equilibrium or period of inertia in which the group executes plans created during the transition period.

The group’s last meeting is characterized by a final burst of activity to finish its work. In summary, the punctuated-equilibrium model characterizes groups as exhibiting long periods of inertia interspersed with brief revolutionary changes triggered primarily by members’ awareness of time and deadlines. This is not the only model of group stages by far, but it is a dominant theory with strong support. Keep in mind, however, that this model doesn’t apply to all groups but is suited to the finite quality of temporary task groups working under a time deadline.19

Group Property 1: Roles Work groups shape members’ behavior, and they also help explain individual behavior as well as the performance of the group itself. Some defining group properties are roles, norms, status, size, cohesiveness, and diversity. We’ll discuss each in the sections that follow. Let’s begin with the first group property, roles.

Shakespeare said, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.”* Using the same metaphor, all group members are actors, each playing a role, a set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occu- pying a given position in a social unit. We are required to play a number of

9-3 Show how role require-ments change in different situations.

The Punctuated-Equilibrium ModelExhibit 9-1

A

First Meeting

Phase 1

CompletionPhase 2

Transition

(High)

(Low) (A+B)/2 Time

Pe rfo

rm an

ce

B

*William Shakespeare, As You Like It, D. C. Heath & Company, 1904.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 292 29/09/17 3:09 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 293

diverse roles, both on and off our jobs. As we’ll see, one of the tasks in under- standing behavior is grasping the role a person is currently playing.

Bill is a plant manager with EMM Industries, a large electrical equipment manufacturer in Phoenix. He fulfills a number of roles—employee, member of middle management, and electrical engineer. Off the job, Bill holds more roles: husband, father, Catholic, tennis player, member of the Thunderbird Country Club, and president of his homeowners’ association. Many of these roles are compatible; some create conflicts. How does Bill’s religious commit- ment influence his managerial decisions regarding layoffs, expense padding, and provision of accurate information to government agencies? A recent offer of promotion requires Bill to relocate, yet his family wants to stay in Phoenix. Can the role demands of his job be reconciled with the demands of his hus- band and father roles?

Different groups impose different role requirements on individuals. Like Bill, we all play a number of roles, and our behavior varies with each. But how do we know each role’s requirements? We draw on our role perceptions to frame our ideas of appropriate behaviors and to learn the expectations of our groups.

Role Perception Our view of how we’re supposed to act in a given situation is a role perception. We get role perceptions from stimuli all around us—for example, friends, books, films, and television, as when we form an impression of politicians from House of Cards. Apprenticeship programs allow beginners to watch an expert so they can learn to act as they should.

Role Expectations Role expectations are the way others believe you should act in a given context. A U.S. federal judge is viewed as having propriety and dignity, while a football coach may be seen as aggressive, dynamic, and inspiring to the players.

In the workplace, we look at role expectations through the perspective of the psychological contract: an unwritten agreement that exists between employees and employers. This agreement sets out mutual expectations.20 Management is expected to treat employees justly, provide acceptable working conditions,

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

role perception An individual’s view of how he or she is supposed to act in a given situation.

role expectations How others believe a person should act in a given situation.

psychological contract An unwritten agree- ment that sets out what a manager expects from an employee, and vice versa.

Les Hatton, manager of a Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI), store in Man- hattan, pumps up employees before the store’s grand opening. Part of the psychological contract between REI and its employees is the expectation that salespeople will display enthusi- asm and generate excitement while welcoming and serving customers. Source: Matt Payton/AP Images

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 293 29/09/17 3:09 pm

294 PART 3 The Group

clearly communicate what is a fair day’s work, and give feedback on how well employees are doing. Employees are expected to demonstrate a good attitude, follow directions, and show loyalty to the organization. When a psychological contract also focuses on relationships between employers (or supervisors) and employees, employees may also be more likely to engage in organizational citi- zenship behaviors (OCBs).21

What happens if management is derelict in its part of the bargain? We can expect negative effects on employee performance and satisfaction. One study among restaurant managers found that violations of the psychological contract were related to greater intentions to quit, while another study of a variety of different industries found psychological contracts were associated with lower levels of productivity, higher levels of theft, and greater work withdrawal.22

There is evidence that perceptions of psychological contracts vary across cultures. In France, where people are individualistic and power is more asym- metric, contracts are perceived as self-interested yet favoring the more pow- erful party. In Canada, where people are individualistic but power is more symmetric, contracts are perceived as self-interested yet focused on balanced reciprocity. In China, where people are collectivistic and power is more asymmetric, contracts are perceived as going beyond the work context into employees’ lives. And in Norway, where people are collectivistic but power is more symmetric, contracts are perceived as more relational and based on trust.23

Role Conflict When compliance with one role requirement may make it difficult to comply with another, the result is role conflict.24 At the extreme, two or more role expectations may be contradictory. For example, if you, as a manager, were to provide a performance evaluation of a person you mentored, your roles as eval- uator and mentor may conflict. Similarly, we can experience interrole conflict25 when the expectations of our different, separate groups are in opposition. An example can be found in work–family conflict, which Bill experiences when expectations placed on him as a husband and father differ from those placed on him as an executive with EMM Industries. Bill’s wife and children want to remain in Phoenix, while EMM expects its employees to be responsive to the company’s needs and requirements. Although it might be in Bill’s financial and career interests to accept a relocation, the conflict centers on choosing between family and work role expectations. Indeed, a great deal of research demonstrates that work–family conflict is one of the most significant sources of stress for most employees.26

Within organizations, most employees are simultaneously in occupations, work groups, divisions, and demographic groups, and these identities can con- flict when the expectations of one clash with the expectations of another.27 Dur- ing mergers and acquisitions, employees can be torn between their identities as members of their original organization and of the new parent company.28 Multi- national organizations have also been shown to lead to dual identification— with the local division and with the international organization.29

Role Play and Assimilation The degree to which we comply with our role perceptions and expectations— even when we don’t agree with them initially—can be surprising. One of the most illuminating role and identity experiments was done a number of years ago by psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his associates.30 They created a “prison” in the basement of the Stanford psychology building; hired emotion- ally stable, physically healthy, law-abiding students who scored “normal average”

interrole conflict A situation in which the expectations of an individual’s different, separate groups are in opposition.

role conflict A situation in which an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 294 29/09/17 3:09 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 295

on 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. Con- sistent with social identity theory, the guards came to see the prisoners as a negative outgroup, and they 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 like they were inferior and powerless. Every guard, at some time during the simula- tion, 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 think- ing: ‘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 researchers had to end the study after only 6 days because of the participants’ pathological reactions.

What can we conclude from this study? Like the rest of us, the partici- pants had learned stereotyped conceptions of guard and prisoner roles from the mass media and their own personal experiences in power and powerless

Myth or Science? Gossip and Exclusion Are Toxic for Groups

The statement above is not neces-sarily true, but it is counterintuitive. Let’s explore the conditions. What is gossip? Most of us might

say gossip is talking about oth- ers, sharing rumors, and speculat- ing about others’ behaviors; gossip affects a person’s reputation. We might also say gossip is malicious, but according to researchers, it can serve positive social functions, too. Prosocial gossip can expose behavior that exploits other people, which can lead to positive changes. For exam- ple, if Julie tells Chris that Alex is bul- lying Summer, then Chris has learned about Alex’s poor behavior through gossiping. Chris might refuse to part- ner with Alex on a work project, which might limit Alex’s opportunities with the organization, preventing him from bullying more people. Alternatively, as the gossip spreads, Alex might feel exposed for his behavior and con- form to group expectations against

bullying behavior. In fact, according to research, Alex is likely to cooperate with the group in response to the gos- sip, and others hearing and spreading the gossip are likely also to cooperate by not acting on their impulses toward bad behavior.

What about excluding Alex? There are two types of exclusion in the work- place: leaving someone out of a group and ostracizing an individual. Both lead to the same end—the person isn’t part of the group. While simply leaving someone out of a group might not send a message of exclusion, ostracism cer- tainly does. Ostracism is more of a felt punishment than gossip because it is more direct. Research indicates that ostracized individuals cooperate to a greater degree when they are around the group to show a willingness to con- form, hoping to be invited back into the group.

Can gossip and ostracism work together? Yes, according to a recent

study. When subjects were given an opportunity to gossip about the work of another subject, that subject coop- erated more than before; when the opportunity to gossip was paired with the ability to ostracize, that subject cooperated to a much greater degree.

Thus, gossip and exclusion may pro- vide groups with benefits, at least when the gossip is confined to truthful work- related discussion, when the opportu- nity still exists to rejoin the group with full standing, and when the group norms are positive.

Sources: Based on M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, “The Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An Integrative Review,” Perspec- tives on Psychological Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245–74; M. Feinberg, R. Willer, and M. Schultz, “Gossip and Ostracism Pro- mote Cooperation in Groups,” Psychologi- cal Science 25, no. 3 (2014): 656–64; and I. H. Smith, K. Aquino, S. Koleva, and J. Gra- ham, “The Moral Ties That Bind . . . Even to Out-Groups: The Interactive Effect of Moral Identity and the Binding Moral Foundations,” Psychological Science (2014): 1554–62.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 295 29/09/17 3:09 pm

296 PART 3 The Group

relationships gained at home (parent–child), in school (teacher–student), and in other situations. This background allowed them to assume roles easily and rapidly and, with a vague notion of the social identity of their roles and no prior personality pathology or training for the parts they were playing, to exe- cute extreme forms of behavior consistent with those roles.

A reality television show that was a follow-up to the Stanford experiment was conducted by the BBC.31 The BBC results were dramatically different from those of the Stanford experiment, partially because the show used a less intense simulated prison setting. The “guards” were far more careful in their behav- ior, limiting their aggressive treatment of “prisoners” and expressing concerns about how their actions might be perceived. In short, they did not fully take on their authority roles, possibly because they knew their behavior was being observed by millions of viewers. These results suggest that less intense situations evoke less extreme behavior, and abuse of roles can be limited when people are made conscious of their behavior.

Group Property 2: Norms Did you ever notice that golfers don’t speak while their partners are putting? Why not? The answer is norms.

All groups have established norms—acceptable standards of behavior shared by members that express what they ought to do and ought not to do under certain circumstances. It’s not enough for group leaders to share their opinions—even if members adopt the leaders’ views, the effect may last only 3 days!32 When agreed to by the group, norms influence behavior with a mini- mum of external controls. Different groups, communities, and societies have different norms, but they all have them.33 Let’s discuss the levels of influence that norms can exert over us, starting with our emotions.

Norms and Emotions Have you ever noticed how the emotions of one member of your family, espe- cially strong emotions, can influence the emotions of the other members? A family can be a highly normative group. So can a task group whose members work together on a daily basis, because frequent communication can increase the power of norms. A recent study found that, in a task group, individuals’ emotions influenced the group’s emotions, and vice versa. This may not be sur- prising, but researchers also found that norms dictated the experience of emo- tions for the individuals and for the groups—in other words, people grew to interpret their shared emotions in the same way.34 As we discovered in Chap- ters 5 and 6, our emotions and moods can shape our perspective, so the nor- mative effect of groups can have a powerful influence on group attitudes and outcomes.

Norms and Conformity As a member of a group, you desire acceptance by the group. Thus, you are sus- ceptible to conforming to group norms. Considerable evidence suggests that groups can place strong pressures on individual members to change their atti- tudes and behaviors to match the group’s standard.35 The impact that group pressures for conformity can have on an individual member’s judgment was demonstrated in studies by Solomon Asch and others.36 Asch made up groups of seven or eight people who were asked to compare two cards. One card had one line, and the other had three lines of varying length, one of which was

9-4 Demonstrate how norms exert influence on an individual’s behavior.

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

conformity The adjustment of one’s behavior to align with the norms of the group.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 296 29/09/17 3:09 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 297

identical to the line on the one-line card, as Exhibit 9-2 shows. The difference in line length was obvious; in fact, under ordinary conditions, subjects were incorrect less than 1 percent of the time in announcing which of the three lines matched the single line.

The experiment began with sets of matching exercises. Everyone gave the right answers. On the third set, however, the first subject, who was part of the research team, gave an obviously wrong answer—for example, saying “C” in Exhibit 9-2 was the same as “X.” The next subject, also on the research team, gave the same wrong answer, and so forth. Now the dilemma confronting the subject, who didn’t know any of the subjects were on the research team, was this: Should he or she publicly state a perception that differed from the announced position of the others or give an incorrect answer that agreed with the others?

The results over many experiments showed 75 percent of subjects gave at least one answer that conformed—that they knew was wrong but was consis- tent with the replies of other group members—and the average conformer gave wrong answers 37 percent of the time. This suggests that we feel the pressure toward conformity with group norms. Other recent research with moral decision making indicated an even stronger effect of conformity when subjects found the nonconforming ideas not just incorrect but objection- able.37 Does that mean we are mere robots? Certainly not. The flip side of the 37 percent of conforming responses is the 63 percent of independent responses, and 95 percent gave the correct (nonconforming) response at least once. Therefore, we feel the pressure to conform, but it is not a perfect predictor of what we will do. Furthermore, we don’t tend to like the pressure we feel to conform. Asch wrote, “Those who participated in this challenging experiment agreed nearly without exception that independence was prefer- able to conformity.”38

Do individuals conform to the pressures of all groups to which they belong? Obviously not, because people belong to many groups whose norms vary and sometimes are contradictory. People conform to their reference groups, in which a person is aware of other members, defines him- or herself as a member or would like to be a member, and feels group members are significant to him or her. The implication, then, is that all groups do not impose equal confor- mity pressures on their members.

Norms and Behavior Norms can cover any aspect of group behavior.39 As we’ve mentioned, norms in the workplace significantly influence employee behavior. This may seem intui- tive, but full appreciation of the influence of norms on worker behavior did not occur until the Hawthorne Studies conducted between 1924 and 1932 at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago.40

reference groups Important groups to which individuals belong or hope to belong and with whose norms individuals are likely to conform.

Examples of Cards Used in Asch’s StudyExhibit 9-2

X A B C

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 297 29/09/17 3:09 pm

298 PART 3 The Group

An Ethical Choice Using Peer Pressure as an Influence Tactic

W e’ve all experienced peer pressure, and it can be hard to behave differently from your friends and coworkers. As more work in organizations is performed in groups and teams, the possibilities and pitfalls of such pressure have become an increasingly important ethi- cal issue for managers.

Peer pressure can be a positive force in some ways. In groups where high effort and performance are the norms, peer pressure from coworkers, whether direct or indirect, can encour- age high performance from those not meeting expectations. A group with a norm toward behaving ethically could also use peer pressure to minimize negative behavior. Thus, peer pressure can promote all sorts of good behav- iors, from donating to charity to volun- teering at the local soup kitchen.

However, peer pressure can also be destructive. It can create a feeling of exclusion in those who do not go along with group norms and can be very stressful and hurtful for those who don’t see eye-to-eye with the rest of the group. Peer pressure itself can be an unethical practice that unduly influ- ences workers’ behavior and thoughts. And while groups might pressure oth- ers into good behavior, they can just as easily sway them to bad behavior.

Should you use group peer pres- sure? As a leader, you may need to. One survey found that only 6 percent of leaders reported being able to suc- cessfully influence their employees on their own. Peer pressure hastens a group toward consensus, and levels of peer pressure predict how much the leader can control the group. If you use peer pressure to encourage individuals

to work toward team goals and behave consistently with organizational values, it can enhance ethical performance. But your behavior should emphasize acceptance and rewarding of posi- tive behavior, rather than rejection and exclusion, as a means of getting everyone to behave consistently in the group.

Sources: Based on E. Estrada and E. Vargas- Estrada, “How Peer Pressure Shapes Con- sensus, Leadership, and Innovations in Social Groups,” Scientific Reports 3 (2013), article number 2905; A. Verghese, “The Healing Power of Peer Pressure,” Newsweek, March 14, 2011, www.newsweek.com; J. Meer, “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Peer Pres- sure in Charitable Solicitation,” Journal of Public Economics 95, no. 7–8 (2011): 926– 41; and L. Potter, “Lack Influence at Work? Why Most Leaders Struggle to Lead Posi- tive Change,” Yahoo, May 14, 2013, http:// finance.yahoo.com/news/lack-influence-why- most-leaders-121500672.html.

In the studies, the researchers first examined the relationship between the physical environment and productivity. As they increased the light level for the experimental group of workers, output rose for that unit and the control group. But as they dropped the light level, productivity continued to increase. In fact, productivity in the experimental group decreased only when the light intensity had been reduced to that of moonlight, leading researchers to believe that group dynamics, rather than the environment, influenced behavior.

The researchers next isolated a small group of women assembling tele- phones so their behavior could be observed more carefully. Over the next several years, this small group’s output increased steadily, and the number of personal and sick absences was approximately one-third of that in the regular production department. It became evident that this group’s performance was significantly influenced by its “special” status. The members thought they were in an elite group, and that management showed concern about their interests by engaging in experimentation. In essence, workers in both the illumination and assembly experiments were really reacting to the increased attention they received.

A wage incentive plan was then introduced in the bank wiring observation room. The most important finding was that employees did not individually maximize their output. Rather, their role performance became controlled by a group norm. Members were afraid that if they significantly increased their output, the unit incentive rate might be cut, the expected daily output might be increased, layoffs might occur, or slower workers might be reprimanded. So the group established its idea of a fair output—neither too much nor too little. Members helped each other ensure their reports were nearly level, and the

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 298 29/09/17 3:09 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 299

norms that the group established included a number of behavioral “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. The group enforced its norms with name calling, ridicule, and even punches to the upper arms of vio- lators. It thus operated well below its capability, using norms that were tightly established and strongly enforced.

Positive Norms and Group Outcomes One goal of every organization with corporate social responsibility (CSR) initia- tives is for the organization’s values (or the values of the CEO and executives) to hold normative sway over employees.41. After all, if employees aligned their thinking with the organization’s 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. Why? Clear expectations about male-female interactions reduce uncertainty about group expectations,42 which allows the members to express their creative ideas more easily, without combating stereo- type norms.

Positive group norms may well beget positive outcomes, but only if other factors are present, too. For instance, in a recent study a high level of group extraversion predicted helping behaviors more strongly when there were posi- tive cooperation norms.43 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. Also, a recent study in Germany indicated that the more satisfied people were with their groups, the more closely they followed group norms.44

From studies of employees at the Western Electric Company’s Haw- thorne Works in Chicago, researchers gained valuable insights into how indi- vidual behavior is influenced by group norms. They also learned that money was less of a factor in determining worker output than were group stan- dards, sentiments, and security. Source: Hawthorne Museum of Morton College

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 299 29/09/17 3:09 pm

300 PART 3 The Group

Negative Norms and Group Outcomes LeBron is frustrated by a coworker who constantly spreads malicious and unsub- stantiated rumors about him. Lindsay is tired of a member of her work group who, when confronted with a problem, takes out his frustration by yelling and screaming at her and other members. And Mi-Cha recently quit her job as a dental hygienist after being sexually harassed by her employer.

What do these illustrations have in common? They represent employees exposed to acts of deviant workplace behavior.45 As we discussed in Chapter 3, counterproductive work behavior (CWB) or deviant workplace behavior (also called antisocial behavior or workplace incivility) is voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members. Exhibit 9-3 provides a typology of deviant workplace behaviors, with examples of each.

Few organizations will admit to creating or condoning conditions that encourage and maintain deviant behaviors. Yet they exist. As we discussed before, a work group can become characterized by positive or negative attri- butes. When those attributes are negative, such as when a work group is high in psychopathy and aggression, the characteristics of deceit, amorality, and intent to harm others are pronounced.46 Second, employees have been report- ing an increase in rudeness and disregard toward others by bosses and cowork- ers in recent years. Workplace incivility, like many other deviant behaviors, has many negative outcomes for the victims.47 Nearly half of employees who have suffered this incivility say that it has led them to think about changing jobs; 12 percent actually quit because of it.48 Also, a study of nearly 1,500 respon- dents found that, in addition to increasing turnover intentions, incivility at work increased reports of psychological stress and physical illness.49 Employees that are repeatedly subjected to incivility feel a sense of injustice and may lash out at the organization by engaging in deviant behaviors.50 Research sug- gests that a lack of sleep, which is often caused by heightened work demands and which hinders a person’s ability to regulate emotions and behaviors, can also lead to deviant behavior. As organizations have tried to do more with less, pushing their employees to work extra hours, they may be indirectly facili- tating deviant behavior.51

deviant workplace behavior Voluntary behavior that violates significant organiza- tional norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members. Also called antisocial behavior or workplace incivility.

Typology of Deviant Workplace BehaviorExhibit 9-3

Category Examples

Production Leaving early Intentionally working slowly Wasting resources

Property Sabotage Lying about hours worked Stealing from the organization

Political Showing favoritism Gossiping and spreading rumors Blaming coworkers

Personal aggression Sexual harassment Verbal abuse 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).

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 300 29/09/17 3:09 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 301

Like norms in general, employees’ antisocial actions are shaped by the group context within which they work. Evidence demonstrates deviant work- place behavior is likely to flourish where it’s supported by group norms.52 For example, workers who socialize either at or outside work with people who are frequently absent from work are more likely to be absent themselves.53 Thus when deviant workplace norms surface, employee cooperation, commitment, and motivation are likely to suffer.

What are the consequences of workplace deviance for groups? Some research suggests a chain reaction occurs in groups with high levels of dysfunc- tional behavior.54 The process begins with negative behaviors like shirking, undermining coworkers, or being generally uncooperative. As a result of these behaviors, the group collectively starts to have negative moods. These nega- tive moods then result in poor coordination of effort and lower levels of group performance.

Norms and Culture Do people in collectivist cultures have different norms than people in individu- alist cultures? Of course they do.55 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 per- sonal choice of the task, or the collectivist-primed subjects were assigned the task by an ingroup person, they became more highly motivated.56

Group Property 3: Status, and Group Property 4: Size and Dynamics We’ve discussed how the roles we play and the norms we internalize tend to dictate our behavior in groups. However, those are not the only two factors that influence who we are in a group and how the group functions. Have you ever noticed how groups tend to stratify into higher- and lower-status members? Sometimes the status of members reflects their status outside the group setting, but not always. Also, status often varies between groups of different sizes. Let’s examine how these factors affect a work group’s efficacy.

Group Property 3: Status Status—a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others—permeates every society. Even the smallest group shows differences in member status over time. Status is a significant motivator and has major behavioral consequences when individuals perceive a disparity between what they believe their status is and what others perceive it to be.

What Determines Status? According to status characteristics theory, status tends to derive from one of three sources:57

1. The power a person wields over others. Because they likely control the group’s resources, people who control group outcomes tend to be per- ceived as high status.

2. A person’s ability to contribute to a group’s goals. People whose contribu- tions are critical to the group’s success tend to have high status.

9-5 Show how status and size differences affect group performance.

status A socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others.

status characteristics theory A theory stating that differences in status characteris- tics create status hierarchies within groups.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 301 29/09/17 3:09 pm

302 PART 3 The Group

3. An individual’s personal characteristics. Someone whose personal char- acteristics are positively valued by the group (good looks, intelligence, money, or a friendly personality) typically has higher status than someone with fewer valued attributes.

Status and Norms Status has some interesting effects on the power of norms and pressures to conform. High-status individuals may be more likely to devi- ate from norms when they have low identification (social identity) with the group.58 They also eschew pressure from lower-ranking members of other groups. For instance, physicians actively resist administrative decisions made by lower-ranking medical insurance company employees.59 High-status people are also better able to resist conformity pressures than their lower-status peers. An individual who is highly valued by a group but doesn’t need or care about the group’s social rewards is particularly able to disregard conformity norms.60 In general, bringing high-status members into a group may improve perfor- mance, but only up to a point, perhaps because these members may introduce counterproductive norms.61

Status and Group Interaction People tend to become more assertive when they seek to attain higher status in a group.62 They speak out more often, criticize more, state more commands, and interrupt others more often. Lower-status members tend to participate less actively in group discussions; when they pos- sess expertise and insights that could aid the group, failure to fully utilize these members reduces the group’s overall performance. But that doesn’t mean a group of only high-status individuals would be preferable. Adding some high-sta- tus individuals to a group of mid-status individuals may be advantageous because group performance suffers when too many high-status people are in the mix.63

Status Inequity It is important for group members to believe the status hier- archy is equitable. Perceived inequity creates disequilibrium, which inspires

Aaron Rodgers has high status as the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers football team. His status derives from his ability to contribute to his team’s success in winning games. Rodgers’s teammates and coaches value his character, leadership skills, expertise in calling plays, and ability to throw touchdown passes accurately while on the move. Source: Matt Ludtke/FR155580/AP Images

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 302 29/09/17 3:09 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 303

various types of corrective behaviors. Hierarchical groups can lead to resent- ment among those at the lower end of the status continuum. Large differences in status within groups are also associated with poorer individual performance, lower health, and more pronounced intentions for the lower-status members to leave the group.64

Groups generally agree within themselves on status criteria; hence, there is usually high concurrence on group rankings of individuals. Business execu- tives may use personal income or the growth rate of their companies as deter- minants of status. Government bureaucrats may use the size of their budgets, and blue-collar workers may use their years of seniority. Managers who occupy central positions in their social networks are typically seen as higher in status by their subordinates, and this position actually translates into greater influence over the group’s functioning.65

Groups generally form an informal status order based on ranking and com- mand of needed resources.66 Individuals can find themselves in conflicts when they move between groups whose status criteria are different, or when they join groups whose members have heterogeneous backgrounds. Cultures also differ in their criteria for conferring status upon individuals. When groups are het- erogeneous, status differences may initiate conflict as the group attempts to reconcile the separate hierarchies. As we’ll see in Chapter 10, this can be a problem when management creates teams of employees from varied functions.

Status and Stigmatization Although it’s clear that your own status affects the way people perceive you, the status of people with whom you are affiliated can also affect others’ views of you. Studies have shown that people who are stigma- tized can “infect” others with their stigma. This “stigma by association” effect can result in negative opinions and evaluations of the person affiliated with the stigmatized individual, even if the association is brief and purely coinciden- tal. Of course, many of the foundations of cultural status differences have no merit in the first place. For example, men interviewing for a job were viewed as less qualified when they were sitting next to an obese woman in a waiting room. Another study looking at the effects of being associated with an over- weight person found that even when onlookers were told the target person and the overweight person were unrelated, the target person was still devalued. Similarly, leaders of predominantly African American work groups also suffer from stigma by association, resulting in lower performance appraisals by their peers.67

Group Status Early in life, we acquire an “us and them” mentality.68 You may have correctly surmised that if you are in an outgroup, your group is of lower status in the eyes of the associated ingroup’s members. Culturally, sometimes ingroups represent the dominant forces in a society and are given high status, which can create discrimination against their outgroups. Low-status groups, perhaps in response to this discrimination, are likely to leverage ingroup favor- itism to compete for higher status.69 When high-status groups then feel the discrimination from low-status groups, they may increase their bias against the outgroups.70 With each cycle, the groups become more polarized.

Group Property 4: Size and Dynamics Does the size of a group affect the group’s overall behavior? Yes, but the effect depends on what dependent variables we examine.71 Groups with a dozen or more members are good for gaining diverse input.72 If the goal is fact-finding or idea-generating, then larger groups should be more effective.73 Smaller groups of about seven members are better at doing something productive.74

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 303 29/09/17 3:09 pm

304 PART 3 The Group

One of the most important findings about the size of a group concerns social loafing, the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when alone.75 Social loafing directly challenges the assump- tion that the productivity of the group as a whole should at least equal the sum of the productivity of the individuals in it, no matter what the group size.

What causes social loafing? It may be a belief that others in the group are not carrying their fair share. If you see others as lazy or inept, you can reestab- lish equity by reducing your effort. But simply failing to contribute may not be enough for someone to be labeled a free rider. Instead, the group must believe the social loafer is acting in an exploitive manner (benefitting at the expense of other team members).76 Another explanation for social loafing is the diffu- sion of responsibility. Because group results cannot be attributed to any single person, the relationship between an individual’s input and the group’s output is clouded. Individuals may then be tempted to become free riders and coast on the group’s efforts.77

The implications for Organizational Behavior (OB) are significant. When managers use collective work situations, they must also be able to identify indi- vidual efforts. Greater performance diversity creates greater social loafing the lon- ger a group is together, which decreases satisfaction and performance.78

Social loafing appears to have a Western bias.79 It’s consistent with individu- alist cultures, such as the United States and Canada, that are dominated by self- interest. It is not consistent with collectivist societies, in which individuals are motivated by group goals. When research is compared across cultures, groups from Eastern cultures had significantly lower rates of social loafing.

Research indicates that the stronger an individual’s work ethic is, the less likely that person is to engage in social loafing.80 Also, the greater the level of conscientiousness and agreeableness in a group, the more likely that perfor- mance will remain high whether there is social loafing or not.81 There are ways to prevent social loafing: (1) set group goals, so the group has a common pur- pose to strive toward; (2) increase intergroup competition, which focuses on the shared group outcome; (3) engage in peer evaluations; (4) select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in groups; and (5) base group

social loafing The tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually.

Young employees of Alibaba’s Tmall online shopping site celebrate their group’s achievement of increasing the volume of sales orders during China’s “Singles Day” shopping event. Although social loafing is consistent with individualistic cultures, in collec- tivist societies such as China, employ- ees are motivated by group goals and perform better in groups than they do when they are working individually. Source: Han Chuanhao Xinhua News Agency/Newscom

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 304 29/09/17 3:09 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 305

rewards in part on each member’s unique contributions.82 Recent research indicates that social loafing can be counteracted by publicly posting individual performance ratings for group members, too.83 Although no magic bullet will prevent social loafing, these steps should help minimize its effect.

Group Property 5: Cohesiveness, and Group Property 6: Diversity For a group to be highly functioning, it must act cohesively as a unit, but not because all the group members think and act alike. In some ways, the proper- ties of cohesiveness and diversity need to be valued way back at the tacit estab- lishment of roles and norms—will the group be inclusive of all its members, regardless of differences in backgrounds? Let’s discuss the importance of group cohesiveness first.

Group Property 5: Cohesiveness Groups differ in their cohesiveness—the degree to which members are attracted to each other and motivated to stay in the group. Some work groups are cohesive because the members have spent a great deal of time together, the group’s small size or purpose facilitates high interaction, or external threats have brought members close together.

Cohesiveness affects group productivity. Studies consistently show that the relationship between cohesiveness and productivity depends on the group’s performance-related norms.84 If norms for quality, output, and cooperation with outsiders are high, a cohesive group will be more productive than a less cohesive group. But if cohesiveness is high and performance norms are low, productivity will be low. If cohesiveness is low and performance norms are high, productivity increases, but less than in the high-cohesiveness/high-norms situation. When cohesiveness and performance-related norms are both low, productivity tends to fall into the low-to-moderate range. These conclusions are summarized in Exhibit 9-4.

What can you do to encourage group cohesiveness? Here are some ideas: (1) Make the group smaller, (2) encourage agreement with group goals, (3) increase the time members spend together, (4) increase the group’s status and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership, (5) stimulate competi- tion with other groups, (6) give rewards to the group rather than to individ- ual members, and (7) physically isolate the group.85

9-6 Describe how issues of cohesiveness and diversity can be integrated for group effectiveness.

cohesiveness The degree to which group members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group.

Relationship among Group Cohesiveness, Performance Norms, and Productivity

Exhibit 9-4

High productivity

High

High

Low

Cohesiveness

Pe rf

or m

an ce

N or

m s

Low productivity

Low

Moderate productivity

Moderate to low productivity

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 305 29/09/17 3:10 pm

306 PART 3 The Group

Group Property 6: Diversity The final property of groups that we consider is diversity in the group’s mem- bership, or the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or differ- ent from, one another. Overall, studies identify both costs and benefits from group diversity.

Diversity appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early stages of a group’s tenure; this often lowers group morale and raises dropout rates. One study compared groups that were culturally diverse and homogeneous (composed of people from the same country). On a wilderness survival test, the groups performed equally well, but the members from the diverse groups were less satisfied with their groups, were less cohesive, and had more conflict.86 Another study examined the effect of differences in tenure on the performance of 67 engineering research and development groups.87 When most people had roughly the same level of tenure, performance was high, but as tenure diversity increased, performance dropped off. There was an important qualifier: Higher levels of tenure diversity were not related to lower performance for groups when there were effective team-oriented human resources (HR) practices. More spe- cifically, groups 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.88 Gender diversity can also be a challenge to a group, but if inclusiveness is stressed, group conflict and dissatisfaction are lowered.89

You may have correctly surmised that the type of group diversity matters. Surface-level diversity—in observable characteristics such as national origin, race, and gender—alerts people to possible deep-level diversity—in underlying attitudes, values, and opinions. One researcher argues, “The mere presence of diversity you can see, such as a person’s race or gender, actually cues a team that there’s likely to be differences of opinion.”90 Surface-level diversity may subconsciously cue team members to be more open-minded in their views.91 For example, two studies of MBA student groups found surface-level diversity led to greater openness. The effects of deep-level diversity are less understood. Research in Korea indicates that putting people with a high need for power with those with a low need for power can reduce unproductive group competition, whereas putting individuals with a similar need for achievement may increase task performance.92

Although differences can lead to conflict, they also provide an opportunity to solve problems in unique ways. One study of jury behavior found diverse juries were more likely to deliberate longer, share more information, and make fewer factual errors when discussing evidence. Altogether, the impact of diversity on groups is mixed. It is difficult to be in a diverse group in the short term. However, if members can weather their differences, over time diversity may help them be more open-minded and creative and to perform better. For example, gender diversity has been found to improve group performance in Chinese work groups.93 On the other hand, even positive effects are unlikely to be especially strong. As one review stated, “The business case (in terms of demonstrable financial results) for diversity remains hard to support based on the extant research.”94 Yet other researchers argue that we shouldn’t overlook the effects of homogeneity, many of which can be detrimental.95

diversity The extent to which members of a group are similar to, or different from, one another.

MyLab Management Personal Inventory Assessments Go to www.pearson.com/mylab/management to complete the Personal Inventory Assessment related to this chapter.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 306 29/09/17 3:10 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 307

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.

For example, let’s say that group A is composed of three men and three women. The three men have approximately the same amount of work experi- ence and background in marketing. The three women have about the same amount of work experience and background in finance. Group B has three men and three women, but they all differ in terms of their experience and backgrounds. Two of the men are experienced, while the other is new. One of the women has worked at the company for several years, while the other two are new. In addition, two of the men and one woman in group B have backgrounds in marketing, while the other man and the remaining two women have back- grounds in finance. It is thus likely that a faultline will result in subgroups of males and females in group A but not in group B, based on the differentiating characteristics.

Research on faultlines has shown that splits are generally detrimental to group functioning and performance. Subgroups may compete with each other, which takes time away from core tasks and harms group performance. Groups that have subgroups learn more slowly, make more risky decisions, are less cre- ative, and experience higher levels of conflict. Subgroups may not trust each other. Satisfaction with subgroups is generally high, but the overall group’s sat- isfaction is lower when faultlines are present.96

Are faultlines ever a good thing? One study suggested that faultlines based on differences in skill, knowledge, and expertise could be beneficial when the groups were in organizational cultures that strongly emphasized results. Why? A results-driven culture focuses people’s attention on what’s important to the company rather than on problems arising from subgroups.97 Another study showed that problems stemming from strong faultlines based on gender and educational major were counteracted when their roles were crosscut and the group as a whole was given a common goal to strive for. Together, these strate- gies force collaboration between members of subgroups and focus their efforts on accomplishing a goal that transcends the boundary imposed by the fault- line.98 Faultlines that are split along task-relevant characteristics may boost per- formance in certain organizations by promoting division of labor.99

Overall, although research on faultlines suggests that diversity in groups is potentially a double-edged sword, recent work indicates they can be strategi- cally employed to improve performance.

Group Decision Making The belief—characterized by juries—that two heads are better than one has long been accepted as a basic component of the U.S. legal system and those of many other countries. Many decisions in organizations are made by groups, teams, or committees. We’ll discuss the advantages of group decision making, along with the unique challenges that group dynamics bring to the decision- making process. Finally, we’ll offer some techniques for maximizing the group decision-making opportunity.

Groups versus the Individual Decision-making groups may be widely used in organizations, but are group decisions preferable to those made by an individual alone? The answer depends on a number of factors. Let’s begin by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.

faultlines The perceived divisions that split groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as sex, race, age, work experience, and education.

9-7 Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 307 29/09/17 3:10 pm

308 PART 3 The Group

Strengths of Group Decision Making Groups generate more complete informa- tion and knowledge. By aggregating the resources of several individuals, groups bring more input as well as heterogeneity into the decision process. They offer increased diversity of views. This opens up the opportunity to consider more approaches and alternatives. Finally, groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution. Group members who participate in making a decision are more likely to support it enthusiastically and to encourage others to accept it later.

Weaknesses of Group Decision Making Group decisions are time-consuming because groups typically take more time to reach a solution. There are confor- mity pressures. The desire by group members to be accepted and considered an asset to the group can squash any overt disagreement. Group discussion can be dominated by one or a few members. If they’re low- and medium-ability mem- bers, the group’s overall effectiveness will suffer. Finally, group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility. In an individual decision, it’s clear who is account- able for the final outcome. In a group decision, the responsibility of any single member is diluted.

Effectiveness and Efficiency Whether groups are more effective than individ- uals depends on how you define effectiveness. Group decisions are generally more accurate than the decisions of the average individual in a group, but they are less accurate than the judgments of the most accurate person.100 In terms of speed, individuals are superior. If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effective. And if effectiveness means the degree of acceptance of achiev- able solutions, the nod again goes to the group.101

But we cannot consider effectiveness without also assessing efficiency. With few exceptions, group decision making consumes more work hours than hav- ing an individual tackle the same problem. The exceptions tend to be instances in which, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talking to other peo- ple. In deciding whether to use groups, then, managers must assess whether increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the reductions in efficiency.

In summary, groups are an excellent vehicle for performing many steps in the decision-making process and offer both breadth and depth of input for information gathering. If group members have diverse backgrounds, the alter- natives generated should be more extensive and the analysis more critical. When the final solution is agreed on, there are more people in a group deci- sion to support and implement it. These pluses, however, may be more than offset by the time consumed by group decisions, the internal conflicts they create, and the pressures they generate toward conformity. We must be care- ful to define the types of conflicts, however. Research in Korea indicates that group conflicts about tasks may increase group performance, while conflicts in relationships may decrease performance.102 In some cases, therefore, we can expect individuals to make better decisions than groups.

Groupthink and Groupshift Two by-products of group decision making, groupthink and groupshift, can affect a group’s ability to appraise alternatives objectively and achieve high- quality solutions.

Groupthink relates to norms and describes situations in which group pres- sures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minor- ity, or unpopular views. Groupthink attacks many groups and can dramatically

groupthink A phenomenon in which the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 308 29/09/17 3:10 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 309

Career OBjectives Can I fudge the numbers and not take the blame?

I’ve got a great work group, except for one thing: The others make me omit negative information about our group’s success that I’m in charge of as the treasurer. They gang up on me, insult me, and threaten me, so in the end I report what they want. They say omit- ting the negative information is not really wrong, and it doesn’t violate our organization’s rules, but on my own I would report everything. I need to stay in the group or I’ll lose my job. If we are called out on the numbers, can I just put the blame on the whole group?

— Jean-Claude Dear Jean-Claude: The short answer is that, because you are in a leadership role in the group, you may not have the option of blam- ing the others. Further, you may be held individually accountable as a leader for the outcomes of this situation.

Your dilemma is not unusual. Once we think of ourselves as part of a col- lective, we want to stay in the group and

can become vulnerable to pressures to conform. The pressure you’re get- ting from multiple members can make you aware that you’re in the minority in the group, and taunting can make you feel like an outsider or lesser member; therefore threats to harm your group standing may feel powerful.

So you have a choice: Submit to the pressure and continue misrepresenting your group’s success, or adhere to the responsibility you have as the treasurer and come clean. From an ethical stand- point, we hope you don’t consider the first option an acceptable choice. To make a change, you may be able to use social identification to your advantage. Rather than challenging the group as a whole, try meeting with individual group members to build trust, talking to each as fellow members of a worthy group that can succeed without any ethical quandaries. Don’t try to build a coali- tion; instead, build trust with individu- als and change the climate of the group

to value ethical behavior. Then the next time you need to report the numbers, you can call upon the group’s increased ethical awareness to gain support for your leadership decisions.

Sources: Based on M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, “The Neuroscience of Intergroup Rela- tions: An Integrative Review,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245–74; M. A. Korsgaard, H. H. Brower, and S. W. Lester, “It Isn’t Always Mutual: A Critical Review of Dyadic Trust,” Journal of Management 41, no. 1 (2015): 47–70; and R. L. Priem and P. C. Nystrom, “Exploring the Dynamics of Workgroup Fracture: Com- mon Ground, Trust-with-Trepidation, and Warranted Distrust,” Journal of Management 40, no. 3 (2014): 674–795.

The opinions provided here are of the manag- ers and authors only and do not necessar- ily reflect those of their organizations. The authors or managers are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. In no event will the authors or managers, or their related partnerships or corporations thereof, be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the opinions provided here.

hinder their performance.103 Groupshift describes the way group members tend to exaggerate their initial positions when discussing a given set of alterna- tives to arrive at a solution. In some situations, caution dominates and there is a conservative shift, while in other situations groups tend toward a risky shift.104 Let’s look at each phenomenon in detail.

groupshift A change between a group’s decision and an individual decision that a member within the group would make; the shift can be toward either conservatism or greater risk but it generally is toward a more extreme version of the group’s original position.

Groupthink Groupthink appears closely aligned with the conclusions Solo- mon Asch drew in his experiments with a lone dissenter. Individuals who hold a position different from that of the dominant majority are under pressure to suppress, withhold, or modify their true feelings and beliefs. As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement—to be a positive part of the group—than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption would improve effec- tiveness. Groups that are more focused on performance than learning are espe- cially likely to fall victim to groupthink and to suppress the opinions of those who do not agree with the majority.105

MyLab Management Try It If your instructor has assigned this activity, go to www.pearson.com/ mylab/management to complete the Mini Sim.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 309 29/09/17 3:10 pm

310 PART 3 The Group

Does groupthink attack all groups? No. It seems to occur most often when there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive image of their group that they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to its positive image.106 One study showed that those influenced by groupthink were more confident about their course of action early on;107 how- ever, groups that believe too strongly in the correctness of their course of action are more likely to suppress dissent and encourage conformity than groups that are more skeptical about their course of action.

What can managers do to minimize groupthink?108 First, they can monitor group size. People grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases, and although there is no magic number that will eliminate groupthink, indi- viduals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups are larger than about 10 members. Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of deliberation. In addition, managers should appoint one group member to play the role of dev- il’s advocate, overtly challenging the majority position and offering divergent perspectives. Yet another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate active dis- cussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group or intensifying identity protection. Have group members delay discussion of possible gains so they can first talk about the dangers or risks inherent in a decision. Requir- ing members to focus initially on the negatives of an alternative makes the group less likely to stifle dissenting views and more likely to gain an objective evaluation.

Groupshift or Group Polarization There are differences between group deci- sions and the individual decisions of group members.109 In groups, discussion leads members toward a more extreme view of the position they already held. Conservatives become more cautious, and more aggressive types take on more risk. We can view this group polarization as a special case of groupthink. The group’s decision reflects the dominant decision-making norm—toward greater caution or more risk—that develops during discussion.

The shift toward polarization has several explanations.110 It’s been argued, for instance, that discussion makes the members more comfortable with each other and thus more willing to express extreme versions of their original posi- tions. Another argument is that the group diffuses responsibility. Group deci- sions free any single member from accountability for the group’s final choice, so a more extreme position can be taken. It’s also likely that people take extreme positions because they want to demonstrate how different they are from the outgroup.111 People on the fringes of political or social movements take on ever-more-extreme positions just to prove they are really committed to the cause, whereas those who are more cautious tend to take moderate posi- tions to demonstrate how reasonable they are.

So how should you use the findings on groupshift? Recognize that group decisions exaggerate the initial position of individual members, the shift has been shown more often to be toward greater risk, and which way a group will shift is a function of the members’ prediscussion inclinations.

We now turn to the techniques by which groups make decisions. These reduce some of the dysfunctional aspects of group decision making.

Group Decision-Making Techniques The most common form of group decision making takes place in interacting groups. Members meet face-to-face and rely on both verbal and nonverbal inter- action to communicate. But as our discussion of groupthink demonstrated,

interacting groups Typical groups in which members interact with each other face-to- face.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 310 29/09/17 3:10 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 311

interacting groups often censor themselves and pressure individual members toward conformity of opinion. Brainstorming and the nominal group tech- nique can reduce problems inherent in the traditional interacting group.

Brainstorming Brainstorming can overcome the pressures for conformity that dampen creativity112 by encouraging any and all alternatives while withholding criticism. In a typical brainstorming session, a half-dozen to a dozen people sit around a table. The group leader states the problem in a clear manner so all participants understand. Members then freewheel as many alternatives as they can in a given length of time. To encourage members to “think the unusual,” no criticism is allowed, even of the most bizarre suggestions, and all ideas are recorded for later discussion and analysis.

Brainstorming may indeed generate ideas—but not very efficiently. Research consistently shows individuals working alone generate more ideas than a group in a brainstorming session. One reason for this is “production blocking.” When people are generating ideas in a group, many are talking at once, which blocks individuals’ thought process and eventually impedes the sharing of ideas.113

Nominal Group Technique The nominal group technique may be more effective. This technique restricts discussion and interpersonal communication during the decision-making process. Group members are all physically present, as in a traditional meeting, but they operate independently. Specifically, a problem is presented and then the group takes the following steps:

1. Before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes down ideas about the problem.

2. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. No discussion takes place until all ideas have been presented and recorded.

3. The group discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them. 4. Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas. The

idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.

The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits a group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking. Research generally shows nominal groups outperform brainstorming groups.114

Each of the group decision techniques has its own set of strengths and weak- nesses. The choice depends on the criteria you want to emphasize and the cost–benefit trade-off. As Exhibit 9-5 indicates, an interacting group is good for achieving commitment to a solution, brainstorming develops group cohesive- ness, and the nominal group technique is an efficient means for generating a large number of ideas.

brainstorming An idea-generation process that specifically encourages any and all alternatives while withholding any criticism of those alternatives.

nominal group technique A group decision- making method in which individual members meet face-to-face to pool their judgments in a systematic but independent fashion.

Evaluating Group EffectivenessExhibit 9-5

Type of Group

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

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 311 29/09/17 3:10 pm

312 PART 3 The Group

Summary 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 will- ingness 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 the opposite. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced ten- sion and job dissatisfaction.115 Groups can be carefully managed toward posi- tive organizational outcomes and optimal decision making. The next chapter will explore several of these conclusions in greater depth.

Implications for Managers ● Recognize that groups can have a dramatic impact on individual behavior

in organizations, to either positive or negative effect. Therefore, pay spe- cial attention to roles, norms, and cohesion—to understand how these are operating within a group is to understand how the group is likely to behave.

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

● Pay attention to the status aspect of groups. Because lower-status people tend to participate less in group discussions, groups with high status dif- ferences 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.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 312 29/09/17 3:10 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 313

Diverse Work Groups Are Smarter and More Innovative POINT

B irds of a feather flock together, but when it comes to busi-ness, it may be better for pigeons to flock with crows. Employ-ees may feel more comfortable working with people who are similar to them, but this comfort may come at the cost of success.

Time after time, research demonstrates that more diverse com- panies have the most success. A global analysis of 2,400 compa- nies demonstrated that the presence of at least one female employee on an executive board leads to higher net income growth and return on equity. Diversity at lower levels of the organization may also be helpful: Companies with more diverse work groups have higher finan- cial returns than companies with fewer minority or female employees.

Diverse groups think smarter. When people are asked to work with people who are different from them, they are forced out of their com- fort zone, leading to more critical thinking and innovation. In mock juries, for example, more ethnically heterogenous juries made more accurate decisions and supported their decisions with more facts from the case. Teams of heterogenous financial professionals also performed better on tasks where they were asked to price stocks in a stock market simulation. In addition, a recent analysis of research and design teams in Spain found that teams with greater gender diversity created more innovative products. Other types of diversity may also be beneficial. In a murder mystery task, groups with a mix of organizational tenure were more likely to guess the correct suspect. When cultural diversity of businesses in the United Kingdom were analyzed, more culturally diverse leadership teams created more new products.

So the next time you’re worried about working with someone you don’t have a lot in common with, remember the words of Maya Angelou: “In diversity there is beauty and there is strength.”

COUNTERPOINT

T here is some evidence that having diverse leadership may benefit companies. What about the research showing that diversity is linked to lower employee morale and well-being, slower decision making, and increased conflict? Organizations with more diverse work groups are also more likely to be sued for discrimination.

Sometimes more diverse tasks can boost innovation and critical thinking skills, but those advantages may not be worth forcing employees to work with people they feel uncomfortable with. When employees are forced to participate in diversity initiatives, it can lead to more stress. Over half feel that they have to modify their behavior significantly to feel like they fit in. If employees try to act like their peers rather than acknowledging their differences, it doesn’t just lead to stress. Research has shown that any advantages on task creativity disappear when team members don’t openly discuss and acknowl- edge their differing backgrounds.

Even if employees feel comfortable enough to express themselves, that’s no guarantee that they will actually get along. Group members with diverse racial, gender, and educational backgrounds might have a slight advantage over homogenous groups in some tasks. Yet they can be less effective when group members have different values. When group members have different values because, for example, they have different cultural backgrounds, it may be difficult for the group to overcome these differences.

It may be tempting to think that a diverse team is better, but remember, there’s a reason like attracts like.

Sources: Based on S. Bailey, “Why Diversity Is Bad for Business (and Inclusion Is the Answer),” Forbes, May 20, 2014, https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastianbailey/2014/05/20/why-we-should-prioritize-the-i-in-d-and-i/#2c6b0e54600d; D. Rock, H. Grant, and J. Grey, “Diverse Teams Feel Less Comfortable—and That’s Why They Perform Better,” Harvard Business Review, September 22, 2016, https://hbr.org/2016/09/diverse-teams-feel-less-comfortable-and-thats-why-they-perform- better; and D. Rock and H. Grant, “Why Diverse Teams Are Smarter,” Harvard Business Review, November 4, 2016, https:// hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 313 29/09/17 3:10 pm

314 PART 3 The Group

CHAPTER REVIEW

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

9-1 What are the different types of groups? 9-2 What are the key components of the punctuated- equilibrium model?

9-3 How do role requirements change in different situations?

9-4 How do group norms influence an individual’s behavior?

9-5 How do status and size differences affect group performance?

9-6 How can cohesiveness and diversity support group effectiveness?

9-7 What are the strengths and weaknesses of group (versus individual) decision making?

MyLab Management Discussion Questions Go to www.pearson.com/mylab/management to complete the problems marked with this icon .

APPLICATION AND EMPLOYABILITY Groups have a powerful influence on individuals, lead- ing to both positive and negative consequences. Peer pressure and norms may be beneficial when they help individuals perform better and engage in prosocial behaviors. Yet groups may also exert influences that harm other groups, encourage conformity, and lead to poor decision making. By gaining an understanding of group behaviors, you can better understand how to encourage positive outcomes and avoid negative out- comes in the workplace among your coworkers, super- visors, and subordinates. In this chapter, you learned valuable lessons about communication, collaboration,

and social responsibility when facing peer pressure from coworkers, listening to gossip about a peer, and decid- ing whether peer pressure is an ethically sound strategy for motivating employees. You also utilized your critical thinking skills while exploring the advantages and pitfalls of diverse work groups. In the next section, you will con- tinue to develop these skills, as well as apply your knowl- edge and analytical skills to surviving the wild alone and in a group, assess whether to violate a psychological con- tract, explore the downfalls of hoping for a consensus in American politics, and explore how a group divided affected a military campaign.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE Surviving the Wild: Join a Group or Go It Alone? You are a member of a hiking party. After reaching base camp on the first day, you decide to take a quick sunset hike by yourself. After a few exhilarating miles, you turn around for the return to camp. On your way back, you realize you are lost. You shout for help, to no avail. It is now dark—and getting cold.

Your Task Without communicating with anyone else in your group, read the following scenarios and choose the best answer. Keep track of your answers on a sheet of paper. You have 10 minutes to answer the 10 questions.

Questions 9-8. The first thing you decide to do is to build a fire.

However, you have no matches, so you use the bow- and-drill method. What is the bow-and-drill method?

a. A dry, soft stick is rubbed between the hands against a board of supple green wood.

b. A soft green stick is rubbed between the hands against a hardwood board.

c. A straight stick of wood is quickly rubbed back and forth against a dead tree.

d. Two sticks (one being the bow, the other the drill) are struck to create a spark.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 314 29/09/17 3:10 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 315

9-9. It occurs to you that you can also use the fire as a distress signal. How do you form the interna- tional distress signal with fire? a. Fires in random order b. Fires in a square c. Fires in a cross d. Fires in a line

9-10. You are very thirsty. You go to a nearby stream and collect some water in the small metal cup you have in your backpack. How long should you boil the water? a. 15 minutes b. A few seconds c. 1 minute d. It depends on the altitude.

9-11. You are very hungry, so you decide to eat what appear to be edible berries. When performing the universal edibility test, what should you do? a. Do not eat for 2 hours before the test. b. If the plant stings your lip, confirm the sting by

holding it under your tongue for 15 minutes. c. If nothing bad has happened 2 hours after diges-

tion, eat half a cup of the plant and wait again. d. Separate the plant into its basic components

and eat each component, one at a time.

9-12. Next, you decide to build a shelter for the evening. In selecting a site, what do you not have to consider? a. It must contain material to make the type of

shelter you need. b. It must be free of insects, reptiles, and

poisonous plants. c. It must be large enough and level enough for

you to lie down comfortably. d. It must be on a hill so you can signal rescuers

and keep an eye on your surroundings.

9-13. In the shelter, you notice a spider. You heard from a fellow hiker that black widow spiders populate the area. How do you identify a black widow spider? a. Its head and abdomen are black; its thorax is red. b. It is attracted to light. c. It runs away from light. d. It is dark with a red or orange marking on the

female’s abdomen.

9-14. After getting some sleep, you notice that the night sky has cleared, so you decide to try to find your way back to base camp. You believe you can use the North Star for navigation. How do you locate the North Star? a. Hold your right hand up as far as you can and

look between your index and middle fingers. b. Find Sirius and look 60 degrees above it and to

the right.

c. Look for the Big Dipper and follow the line created by its cup end.

d. Follow the line of Orion’s belt.

9-15. You come across a fast-moving stream. What is the best way to cross it? a. Find a spot downstream from a sandbar, where

the water will be calmer. b. Build a bridge. c. Find a rocky area, because the water will be

shallow and you will have hand- and footholds. d. Find a level stretch where it breaks into a few

channels.

9-16. After walking for about an hour, you feel several spiders in your clothes. You don’t feel any pain, but you know some spider bites are painless. Which of these spider bites is painless? a. Black widow b. Brown recluse c. Wolf spider d. Harvestman (daddy longlegs)

9-17. You decide to eat some insects. Which insects should you avoid? a. Adults that sting or bite b. Caterpillars and insects that have a pungent odor c. Hairy or brightly colored ones d. All the above

Group Task Next, break into groups of five or six people. Once the group comes to an agreement for what to do in each situ- ation, write your decision on the same sheet of paper you used for your individual answers.

Scoring Your Answers Your instructor will provide you with the correct answers, which are based on expert judgments in these situations. Once you have received the answers, calculate (A) your individual score, (B) your group’s score, (C) the average individual score in the group, and (D) the best individu- al score in the group. Write these down and consult with your group to ensure that they are accurate.

A. Your individual score                             B. Your group’s score                               C. Average individual score in group                             D. Best individual score in group                            

Discussion Questions

9-18. How did your group (B) perform relative to yourself (A)?

9-19. How did your group (B) perform relative to the average individual score in the group (C)?

9-20. How did your group (B) perform relative to the best individual score in the group (D)?

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 315 29/09/17 3:10 pm

316 PART 3 The Group

9-21. Compare your results with those of other groups. Did some groups do a better job of outperforming individuals than others?

9-22. What do these results tell you about the effectiveness of group decision making?

9-23. What can groups do to make group decision making more effective?

9-24. What circumstances might cause a group to perform worse than its best individual?

CASE INCIDENT 1 The Calamities of Consensus When it is time for groups to reach a decision, many turn to consensus. Consensus, a situation of agreement, seems like a good idea. To achieve consensus, groups must coop- erate and collaborate, which ultimately produces higher levels of camaraderie and trust. In addition, if everyone agrees, the prevailing wisdom says that everyone will be more committed to the decision.

However, the need for consensus can sometimes be det- rimental to group functioning. Consider the “fiscal cliff” faced by the U.S. government toward the end of 2012. The White House and Congress needed to reach a deal that would reduce the swelling budget deficit. However, many Republicans and Democrats stuck to their party lines, refusing to compromise. Many viewed the end product that achieved consensus as a less-than-optimal solution. The public gave Congress an approval rating of only 13 percent, expressing frustration with the lack of compro- mise, but the group may not have been able to function well partly because of the need for consensus in the face of partisanship.

If consensus is reached, does that mean the decision is the right one? Critics of consensus-based methods argue that any decisions ultimately reached are inferior to deci- sions using other methods such as voting or having team members provide input to their leader, who then makes the final decision. Critics also argue that, because of pres- sures to conform, groupthink is much more likely, and decisions reached through consensus are simply those everyone dislikes the least.

Questions 9-28. Is consensus a good way for groups to make

decisions? Why or why not? 9-29. Can you think of a time when a group of which you

were a part relied on consensus? How do you think the decision turned out?

9-30. Martin Luther King Jr. once proclaimed, “A genuine leader is not a seeker of consensus but a modeler of consensus.” What do you think he meant by that statement? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?

ETHICAL DILEMMA Is It Okay to Violate a Psychological Contract? As we discussed in this chapter, there is an inherent psy- chological contract in many organizations. Supervisors and upper managers are supposed to treat employees with respect, provide sound working conditions, and commu- nicate expectations and feedback clearly. In exchange, employees work hard and remain loyal to the organiza- tion. Mutual expectations are established through psycho- logical contracts. Yet because the psychological contract is an informal rather than a formal agreement, there may be no repercussions when an employer or an employee violates that agreement.

There are many situations where violating the psycho- logical contract between an employer and employee may seem appealing. Managers can save money if they provide employees with less desirable working conditions, or if they lay off employees that have been loyal to the organi- zation. Employees can violate the contract by not working hard or leaving the organization. It may also be unclear whether the psychological contract has been violated at all because employer and employee expectations may have not been clearly communicated. Nonetheless, when one party does not hold up her or his end of the deal, there may still be consequences. If managers do not provide fair

working conditions, employees may shirk their job respon- sibilities. On the other hand, if an employee does not do good work, managers may withhold privileges from the employee.

Questions 9-25. Is it ever ethical for a manager or subordinate to

violate a psychological contract? What if violating a psychological contract may have negative con- sequences for some employees but benefit other employees?

9-26. Are there situations where an employer may think an employee has violated a psychological contract but that employee does not believe they have done anything wrong? Are there situations where an employee may feel that his or her employer has violated a psychological contract, but the employer feels that she or he has done nothing wrong?

9-27. Employees may react to psychological contract violations in a variety of ways. Not all of these reac- tions may be ethical. What is an ethical way for an employee to react? What is an unethical way for an employee to react?

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 316 29/09/17 3:10 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 317

Sources: Based on D. Leonhardt, “When the Crowd Isn’t Wise,” The New York Times, July 8, 2012, SR BW 4; and K. Jensen, “Consensus Is Poison! Who’s with Me?,” May 20, 2013, https://www.forbes .com/sites/keldjensen/2013/05/20/consensus-is-poison-whos-with-me/#66603a297ce9.

CASE INCIDENT 2 Intragroup Trust and Survival When 10 British Army soldiers on a 10-day training exer- cise descended into Low’s Gully, a narrow chasm that cuts through Mt. Kinabalu in Borneo, each knew “the golden rule for such expeditions—never split up.” Yet the fit- test three struggled out of the jungle with concussions, malaria, and infected wounds 19 days later, two more terribly ill soldiers found a village the next day, and the remaining five emaciated and injured men were rescued from a cave by a helicopter on day 33. What happened?

On a surface level, the near-tragic fracturing of the group began with a logical division of labor, according to the training’s initiators, Lieutenant Colonel Neill and Major Foster:

Because the group would be one of mixed abilities, and the young British and NCOs [non-commissioned o"cers] were likely to be fitter and more experienced than the Hong Kong soldiers, the team would work in two halves on the harder phases of the descent. The British, taking ad- vantage of Mayfield’s expertise (in rock climbing), would set up ropes on the di"cult sections, while he [Neill] and Foster would concentrate on bringing the Hong Kong soldiers down. Every now and then the recce (reconnais- sance) party would report back, and the expedition would go on down in one unit until another reconnaissance party became necessary.

The men reported that from then on, perilous climbing conditions, debilitating sickness, and monsoon rains perma- nently divided the group. A review board found differently, blaming Neill’s and Foster’s leadership and their decision to take some less-experienced soldiers on the exercise.

No rulings were made about the near-catastrophic deci- sion to divide the group, but closer inquiries show that this temporary work group of diverse members who were not previously acquainted started out with a high level of intragroup trust that dissolved over time. The resulting faultlines, based on members’ similarities and differences and the establishment of ad hoc leaders, may have been inevitable.

Initially, all group members shared the common ground of soldier training, clear roles, and volunteer com- mitment to the mission. When the leaders ignored the soldiers’ concerns about the severity of conditions, lack

of preparation, and low level of communication, however, trust issues divided the group into subgroups. The initial reconnaissance party established common ground and trust that allowed them to complete the mission and reach safety, even though they divided yet again. Meanwhile, the main group that stayed with the leaders in the cave under conditions of active distrust fractured further.

We will never know whether it would have been better to keep the group together. However, we do know that this small group of soldiers trained to stay together for survival fractured into at least four subgroups because they didn’t trust their leaders or their group, thus endangering all their lives.

Questions 9-31. How was the common ground established by the

reconnaissance subgroups different from the com- mon ground established by the cave subgroups?

9-32. Do you think the group should have fractured as it did? Why or why not?

9-33. When the exercise was designed, Neill created a buddy system based on similarity of soldiers’ back- grounds (rank, unit, age, fitness, skills level). The first group out of the jungle was assigned buddies and one other: two lance corporals and one corpo- ral from the same unit (regular army), ages 24–26 with good fitness levels, all top roping and abseil- ing (TR&A) instructors. The second group out was assigned buddies: a sergeant and a lance corporal from the same unit (elite regular army), ages 25 and 37, good fitness levels, both with Commando Brigade skills. The group left in the cave split into: a lieutenant colonel and a major (buddies), one from the regular army and one from the part time territorial army, ages 46 and 54, fair fitness level, one TR&A and one ski instructor. The second fac- tion was the three from the Hong Kong unit—a lance corporal and two privates, ages 24–32, fair to good fitness levels, one with jungle training and two novices. Would you have set up the buddy system Neill did? Why or why not, and if not, what would you have changed?

Sources: Based on M. A. Korsgaard, H. H. Brower, and S. W. Lester, “It Isn’t Always Mutual: A Critical Review of Dyadic Trust,” Journal of Management 41, no. 1 (2014): 47–70; R. L. Priem and P. C. Nystrom, “Exploring the Dynamics of Workgroup Fracture: Common Ground, Trust-with-Trepidation, and Warranted Distrust,” Journal of Management 40, no. 3 (2014): 764–95; and “The Call of Malaysia’s ‘Conquerable’ Mount Kinabalu,” BBC, June 5, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33020356.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 317 29/09/17 3:10 pm

318 PART 3 The Group

ENDNOTES 1 E. J. Boothby, M. S. Clark, and J. A. Bargh, “Shared Experiences Are Amplified,” Psycho- logical Science 25, no. 12 (2014): 2209–16. 2 B. Bastien, J. Jetten, and L. J. Ferris, “Pain as Social Glue: Shared Pain Increases Coopera- tion,” Psychological Science 25, no. 11 (2014): 2079–85. 3 See H. Tajfel and J. C. Turner, “The Social Identity Theory of Inter Group Behavior,” in S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Chicago, IL: Nelson, 1986); and N. Karelaia and L. Guillen, “Me, a Woman and a Leader: Positive Social Identity and Identity Conflict,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 125, no. 2 (2014): 204–19. 4 P. Belmi, R. C. Barragan, M. A. Neale, and G. L. Cohen, “Threats to Social Identity Can Trigger Social Deviance,” Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin 41, no. 4 (2015): 467–84. 5 H. Takahashi, M. Kato, M. Matsuura, D. Mobbs, T. Suhara, and Y. Okubo, “When Your Gain Is My Pain and Your Pain Is My Gain: Neural Correlates of Envy and Schaden- freude,” Science 323, no. 5916 (2009): 937–39; and C. W. Leach, R. Spears, N. R. Brans- combe, and B. Doosje, “Malicious Pleasure: Schadenfreude at the Suffering of Another Group,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy 84, no. 5 (2003): 932–43. 6 O. Yakushko, M. M. Davidson, and E. N. Williams, “Identity Salience Model: A Para- digm for Integrating Multiple Identities in Clinical Practice,” Psychotherapy 46, no. 2 (2009): 180–92; and S. M. Toh and A. S. Denisi, “Host Country Nationals as Socializing Agents: A Social Identity Approach,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28, no. 3 (2007): 281–301. 7 Karelaia and Guillen, “Me, a Woman and a Leader.” 8 T. Cruwys, E. I. South, K. H. Greenaway, and S. A. Haslam, “Social Identity Reduces Depres- sion by Fostering Positive Attributions,” Social Psychological and Personality Science 6, no. 1 (2015): 65–74. 9 T. Schmader, K. Block, and B. Lickel, “Social Identity Threat in Response to Stereotypic

Film Portrayals: Effects on Self-Conscious Emotion and Implicit Ingroup Attitudes,” Journal of Social Issues 71, no. 1 (2015): 54–72. 10 A. S. Leonard, A. Mehra, & R. Katerberg, “The Social Identity and Social Networks of Ethnic Minority Groups in Organizations: A Crucial Test of Distinctiveness Theory,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 29, no. 5 (2008): 573–89. 11 S. Zhang, G. Chen, X.-P. Chen, D. Liu, and M. D. Johnson, “Relational versus Collective Identification within Workgroups: Concep- tualization, Measurement Development, and Nomological Network Building,” Journal of Management 40, no. 6 (2014): 1700–31. 12 C. G. Banks, S. Kepes, M. Joshi, and A. Seers, “Social Identity and Applicant Attraction: Exploring the Role of Multiple Levels of Self,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 37 no. 3 (2016): 326–45. 13 G. J. Lewis and T. C. Bates, “Common Heritable Effects Underpin Concerns over Norm Maintenance and In-Group Favoritism: Evidence from Genetic Analyses of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Traditionalism,” Journal of Personality 82, no. 4 (2014): 297–309. 14 S. L. Neuberg, C. M. Warner, S. A. Mistler, A. Berlin, E. D. Hill, J. D. Johnson, J. Schober, et al., “Religion and Intergroup Conflict: Findings from the Global Group Relations Project,” Psychological Science 25, no. 1 (2014): 198–206. 15 W. M. L. Finlay, “Denunciation and the Construction of Norms in Group Conflict: Examples from an Al-Qaeda-Supporting Group,” British Journal of Social Psychology 53, no. 4 (2014): 691–710. 16 T. C. Dennehy, A. Ben-Zeev, and N. Tanigawa, “ ‘Be Prepared’: An Implemen- tal Mindset for Alleviating Social-Identity Threat,” British Journal of Social Psychology 53 (2014): 585–94. 17 M. J. Garfield and A. R. Denis, “Toward an Integrated Model of Group Development: Disruption of Routines by Technology-Induced Change,” Journal of Management Information Systems 29, no. 3 (2012): 43–86; M. J. Waller, J. M. Conte, C. B. Gibson, and M. A. Carpenter,

“The Effect of Individual Perceptions of Deadlines on Team Performance,” Academy of Management Review (October 2001): 586–600; A. Chang, P. Bordia, and J. Duck, “Punctuated Equilibrium and Linear Progression: Toward a New Understanding of Group Development,” Academy of Management Journal (February 2003): 106–17; and C. J. Gersick. “Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development,” Academy of Management Journal 31, no. 1 (1988): 1–41. 18 B. B. Morgan, E. Salas, and A. S. Glickman, “An Analysis of Team Evolution and Matura- tion,” The Journal of General Psychology 120, no. 3 (1993): 277–291; and B. Tuckman, “Some Stages of Development in Groups,” Psy- chological Bulletin 63, no. 1 (1965): 384–99. 19 M. M. Kazmer, “Disengaging from a Dis- tributed Research Project: Refining a Model of Group Departures,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (April 2010): 758–71. 20 K. Giese and A. Thiel, “The Psychologi- cal Contract in Chinese-African Informal Labor Relations,” International Journal of Human Resource Management 26, no. 14 (2015): 1807–26; L. Sels, M. Janssens, and I. Van den Brande, “Assessing the Nature of Psychological Contracts: A Validation of Six Dimensions,” Journal of Organizational Behavior (June 2004): 461–88; C. Hui, C. Lee, and D. M. Rousseau, “Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in China: Investigating Generalizability and Instrumentality,” Journal of Applied Psychology (April 2004): 311–21; and D. M. Rousseau, “Psychological and Implied Contracts in Orga- nizations,” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 2, no. 2 (1989): 121–39. 21 K. M. Mai, A. J. Ellis, J. S. Christian, and C.H. Porter, “Examining the Effects of Turn- over Intentions on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Deviance Behaviors: A Psycho- logical Contract Approach,” Journal of Applied Psychology 101, no. 8 (2016): 1067–81. 22 M. D. Collins, “The Effect of Psychological Contract Fulfillment on Manager Turnover Intentions and Its Role as a Mediator in a

MyLab Management Writing Assignments If your instructor has assigned this activity, go to www.pearson.com/mylab/management for auto-graded writing assignments as well as the following assisted-graded writing assignments:

9-34. Refer again to Case Incident 1. What are some ways groups can improve the effectiveness of consensus methods to make decisions?

9-35. After reading Case Incident 2, do you feel subgroups are good or bad? Why or why not? What might be the alternative?

9-36. MyLab Management only—additional assisted-graded writing assignment.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 318 29/09/17 3:10 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 319

Casual, Limited-Service Restaurant Environ- ment,” International Journal of Hospitality Management 29, no. 4 (2010): 736–42; and J. M. Jensen, R. A. Opland, and A. M. Ryan, “Psychological Contracts and Counterproduc- tive Work Behaviors: Employee Responses to Transactional and Relational Breach,” Journal of Business and Psychology 25, no. 4 (2010): 555–68. 23 D. C. Thomas, S. R. Fitzsimmons, E. C. Ravlin, K. Y. Au, B. Z. Ekelund, and C. Barzantny, “Psychological Contracts across Cultures,” Organization Studies 31 (2010): 1437–58. 24 R. L. Kahn, D. M. Wolfe, R. P. Quinn, J. D. Snoek, and R.A. Rosenthal, Organizational Stress (Oxford, England: Wiley, 1964); and K. S. Wilson and H. M. Baumann, “Capturing a More Complete View of Employees’ Lives outside of Work: The Introduction and Devel- opment of New Interrole Conflict Constructs,” Personnel Psychology 68, no. 2 (2015): 235–82. 25 Ibid. 26 See, for example, F. T. Amstad, L L. Meier, U. Fasel, A. Elfering, and N. K. Semmer, “A Meta-Analysis of Work-Family Conflict and Various Outcomes with a Special Emphasis on Cross-Domain Versus Matching-Domain Rela- tions,” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 16, no. 2 (2011): 151–69. 27 Wilson and Baumann, “Capturing a More Complete View of Employees’ Lives outside of Work.” 28 D. Vora and T. Kostova. “A Model of Dual Organizational Identification in the Context of the Multinational Enterprise,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28 (2007): 327–50. 29 C. Reade, “Dual Identification in Multi- national Corporations: Local Managers and Their Psychological Attachment to the Subsid- iary versus the Global Organization,” Interna- tional Journal of Human Resource Management 12, no. 3 (2001): 405–24. 30 S. Drury, S. A. Hutchens, D. E. Shuttles- worth, and C. L. White, “Philip G. Zimbardo on His Career and the Stanford Prison Experi- ment’s 40th Anniversary,” History of Psychology 15, no. 2 (2012): 161–70; S. A. Haslam and S. D. Reicher, “Contesting the ‘Nature’ of Con- formity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s Stud- ies Really Show,” Plos Biology 10, no. 11 (2012): e1001426; and C. Haney, W. Banks, and P. Zimbardo. “Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison,” International Journal of Crim- inology and Penology 1, no. 1 (1973): 69–97. 31 S. A. Haslam and S. Reicher, “Stressing the Group: Social Identity and the Unfolding Dynamics of Responses to Stress,” Journal of Applied Psychology 91, no. 5 (2006): 1037–52; S. Reicher and S. A. Haslam, “Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny: The BBC Prison Study,” British Journal of Social Psychology 45, no. 1 (2006): 1–40; and P. G. Zimbardo, “On Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny: The BBC Prison Study,” British Journal of Social Psychology 45, no. 1 (2006): 47–53.

32 Y. Huang, K. M. Kendrick, and R. Yu, “Con- formity to the Opinions of Other People Lasts for No More Than 3 Days,” Psychological Science 25, no. 7 (2014): 1388–93. 33 M. S. Hagger, P. Rentzelas, and N. K. D. Chatzisrantis, “Effects of Individualist and Collectivist Group Norms and Choice on Intrinsic Motivation,” Motivation and Emotion 38, no. 2 (2014): 215–23; and M. G. Ehrhart and S. E. Naumann, “Organizational Citi- zenship Behavior in Work Groups: A Group Norms Approach,” Journal of Applied Psychology (December 2004): 960–74. 34 E. Delvaux, N. Vanbeselaere, and B. Mesquita, “Dynamic Interplay between Norms and Experiences of Anger and Gratitude in Groups,” Small Group Research 46, no. 3 (2015): 300–23. 35 R. B. Cialdini and N. J. Goldstein, “Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity,” Annual Review of Psychology 55 (2004): 591–621. 36 P. Kundu and D. D. Cummins, “Morality and Conformity: The Asch Paradigm Applied to Moral Decisions,” Social Influence 8, no. 4 (2013): 268–79. 37 Ibid. 38 R. A. Griggs, “The Disappearance of Inde- pendence in Textbook Coverage of Asch’s Social Pressure Experiments,” Teaching of Psychology 42, no. 2 (2015): 137–42. 39 S. Sansfacon and C. E. Amiot, “The Impact of Group Norms and Behavioral Congruence on the Internalization of an Illegal Download- ing Behavior,” Group Dynamics: Theory Research and Practice 18, no. 2 (2014): 174–88; L. Rosh, L. R. Offermann, and R. Van Diest, “Too Close for Comfort? Distinguishing between Team Intimacy and Team Cohesion,” Human Resource Management Review (June 2012): 116–27; and R. B. Cialdini, R. C. A. Kallgren, and R. R. Reno, “A Focus Theory of Norma- tive Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24 (1998): 201–34. 40 J. S. Hassard, “Rethinking the Hawthorne Studies: The Western Electric Research in Its Social, Political, and Historical Context,” Human Relations 65, no. 11 (2012): 1431–61; and E. Mayo, The Human Problems of an Indus- trial Civilization (New York: MacMillan, 1933). 41 M. K. Chin, D. C. Hambrick, and L .K. Treviño, “Political Ideologies of CEOs: The Influence of Executives’ Values on Corporate Social Responsibility,” Administrative Science Quarterly 58, no. 2 (2013): 197–232; and A. B. Carroll, “Corporate Social Responsibil- ity,” Business & Society 38, no. 1 (1999): 268–95. 42 J. A. Goncalo, J. A. Chatman, M. M. Duguid, and J. A. Kennedy, “Creativity from Con- straint? How the Political Correctness Norm Influences Creativity in Mixed-Sex Work Groups,” Administrative Science Quarterly 60, no. 1 (2015): 1–30. 43 E. Gonzalez-Mule, D. S. DeGeest, B. W. McCormick, et al., “Can We Get Some

Cooperation around Here? The Mediating Role of Group Norms on the Relationship between Team Personality and Individual Helping Behaviors,” Journal of Applied Psychology 99, no. 5 (2014): 988–99. 44 T. Masson and I. Fritsche, “Adherence to Climate Change–Related Ingroup Norms: Do Dimensions of Group Identification Matter?,” European Journal of Social Psychology 44, no. 5 (2014): 455–65. 45 See R. J. Bennett and S. L. Robinson, “The Past, Present, and Future of Workplace Devi- ance,” in J. Greenberg (ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science, 2nd ed. (Mah- wah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2003): 237–71; and C. M. Berry, D. S. Ones, and P. R. Sackett, “Inter- personal Deviance, Organizational Deviance, and Their Common Correlates: A Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 2 (2007): 410–24. 46 M. A. Baysinger, K. T. Scherer, and J. M. LeBreton, “Exploring the Disruptive Effects of Psychopathy and Aggression on Group Processes and Group Effectiveness,” Journal of Applied Psychology 99, no. 1 (2014): 48–65. 47 T. C. Reich and M. S. Hershcovis, “Observ- ing Workplace Incivility,” Journal of Applied Psychology 100, no. 1 (2015): 203–15; and Z. E. Zhou, Y. Yan, X. X. Che, and L. L. Meier, “Effect of Workplace Incivility on End-of-Work Negative Affect: Examining Individual and Organizational Moderators in a Daily Diary Study,” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 20, no. 1 (2015): 117–30. 48 See C. Pearson, L. M. Andersson, and C. L. Porath, “Workplace Incivility,” in S. Fox and P. E. Spector (eds.), Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2005): 177–200. 49 S. Lim, L. M. Cortina, and V. J. Magley, “Personal and Workgroup Incivility: Impact on Work and Health Outcomes,” Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 1 (2008): 95–107. 50 D. L. Ferris, J. R. Spence, D. J. Brown, and D. Heller, “Interpersonal Injustice and Work- place Deviance: The Role of Esteem Threat,” Journal of Management 38 no. 6 (2012): 1788–811. 51 M. S. Christian and A. P. J. Ellis, “Examining the Effects of Sleep Deprivation on Work- place Deviance: A Self-Regulatory Perspec- tive,” Academy of Management Journal 54, no. 5 (2011): 913–34. 52 S. L. Robinson and A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, “Monkey See, Monkey Do: The Influence of Work Groups on the Antisocial Behavior of Employees,” Academy of Management Journal 41, no. 6 (1998): 658–72; and T. M. Glomb and H. Liao, “Interpersonal Aggression in Work- groups: Social Influence, Reciprocal, and Indi- vidual Effects,” Academy of Management Journal 46 (2003): 486–96. 53 P. Bamberger and M. Biron, “Group Norms and Excessive Absenteeism: The Role of Peer Referent Others,” Organizational Behavior and

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 319 29/09/17 3:10 pm

320 PART 3 The Group

Human Decision Processes 103, no. 2 (2007): 179–96; and A. Väänänen, N. Tordera, M. Kivimäki, A. Kouvonen, J. Pentti, A. Linna, and J. Vahtera, “The Role of Work Group in Individual Sickness Absence Behavior,” Journal of Health & Human Behavior 49, no. 4 (2008): 452–67. 54 M. S. Cole, F. Walter, and H. Bruch, “Affective Mechanisms Linking Dysfunctional Behavior to Performance in Work Teams: A Moderated Mediation Study,” Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 5 (2008): 945–58. 55 U. E. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. E. Kagitçibaşi, S. C. E. Choi, and G. E. Yoon, Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applica- tions (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994). 56 Hagger, Rentzelas, and Chatzisrantis, “Effects of Individualist and Collectivist Group Norms and Choice on Intrinsic Motivation.” 57 J. Dippong and W. Kalkhoff, “Predicting Performance Expectations from Affective Impressions: Linking Affect Control Theory and Status Characteristics Theory,” Social Science Research 50 (2015): 1–14; A. E. Randel, L. Chay-Hoon, and P. C. Earley, “It’s Not Just about Differences: An Integration of Role Identity Theory and Status Characteristics Theory,” in M. C. T. Hunt (ed.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams (Bingley, UK: Emerald Insight, 2005): 23–42; and B. Ander- son, J. Berger, B. Cohen, and M. Zelditch, “Status Classes in Organizations,” Administra- tive Science Quarterly 11 no. 2 (1966): 264–283. 58 Randel, Chay-Hoon, and Earley, “It’s Not Just about Differences.” 59 R. R. Callister and J. A. Wall Jr., “Conflict across Organizational Boundaries: Managed Care Organizations versus Health Care Providers,” Journal of Applied Psychology 86, no. 4 (2001): 754–63; and P. Chattopadhyay, W. H. Glick, and G. P. Huber, “Organizational Actions in Response to Threats and Opportu- nities,” Academy of Management Journal 44, no. 5 (2001): 937–55. 60 P. F. Hewlin, “Wearing the Cloak: Anteced- ents and Consequences of Creating Facades of Conformity,” Journal of Applied Psychology 94, no. 3 (2009): 727–41. 61 B. Groysberg, J. T. Polzer, and H. A. Elf- enbein, “Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth: How High-Status Individuals Decrease Group Effectiveness,” Organization Science (May–June 2011): 722–37. 62 C. Bendersky and N. P. Shah, “The Cost of Status Enhancement: Performance Effects of Individuals’ Status Mobility in Task Groups,” Organization Science 23, no. 2 (2012): 308–22. 63 B. Groysberg, J. T. Polzer, and H. A. Elfen- bein, “Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth: How High-Status Individuals Decrease Group Effec- tiveness,” Organization Science 22, no. 3 (2011): 722–37. 64 A. M. Christie and J. Barling, “Beyond Status: Relating Status Inequality to Performance and Health in Teams,” Journal of Applied Psychology

95, no. 5 (2010): 920–34; and L. H. Nishii and D. M. Mayer, “Do Inclusive Leaders Help to Reduce Turnover in Diverse Groups? The Moderating Role of Leader-Member Exchange in the Diversity to Turnover Rela- tionship,” Journal of Applied Psychology 94, no. 6 (2009): 1412–26. 65 V. Venkataramani, S. G. Green, and D. J. Schleicher, “Well-Connected Leaders: The Impact of Leaders’ Social Network Ties on LMX and Members’ Work Attitudes,” Journal of Applied Psychology 95, no. 6 (2010): 1071–84. 66 H. van Dijk and M. L. van Engen, “A Status Perspective on the Consequences of Work Group Diversity,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (June 2013): 223–41. 67 Based on J. B. Pryor, G. D. Reeder, and A. E. Monroe, “The Infection of Bad Company: Stigma by Association,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102, no. 2 (2012): 224–41; E. Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (New York, NY: Touchstone Digital, 2009); M. R. Hebl and L. M. Mannix, “The Weight of Obesity in Evaluating Others: A Mere Proximity Effect,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29 (2003): 28–38; and M. Hernandez, D. R. Avery, S. Tonidandel, M. R. Hebl, A. N. Smith, and P. F. McKay, “The Role of Proximal Social Contexts: Assess- ing Stigma-by-Association Effects on Leader Appraisals,” Journal of Applied Psychology 101, no. 1 (2016): 68–85. 68 M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, “The Neuro- science of Intergroup Relations: An Integra- tive Review,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245–74; and H. Tajfel, “Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,” Annual Review of Psychology 33, no. 1 (1982): 1–39. 69 M. Rubin, C. Badea, and J. Jetten, “Low Status Groups Show In-Group Favoritism to Compensate for Their Low Status and Com- pete for Higher Status,” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 17, no. 5 (2014): 563–76. 70 C. L. Wilkins, J. D. Wellman, L. G. Babbitt, N. R. Toosi, and K. D. Schad, “You Can Win but I Can’t Lose: Bias against High-Status Groups Increases Their Zero-Sum Beliefs about Discrimination,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 57 (2014): 1–14. 71 T. J. Bouchard, J. Barsaloux, and G. Drauden, “Brainstorming Procedure, Group Size, and Sex as Determinants of the Problem- Solving Effectiveness of Groups and Individu- als,” Journal of Applied Psychology 59, no. 2 (1974): 135–8. 72 R. B. Gallupe, A. R. Dennis, W. H. Cooper, J. S. Valacich, L. M. Bastianutti, and J. Nuna- maker, “Electronic Brainstorming and Group Size,” Academy of Management Journal 35, no. 2 (2012): 350–69. 73 J. S. Valacich, B. C. Wheeler, B. E. Mennecke, and R. Wachter, “The Effects of Numerical and Logical Group Size on Computer-Mediated Idea Generation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62, no. 3 (1995): 318–29.

74 R. M. Bray, N. L. Kerr, and R. S. Atkin, “Effects of Group Size, Problem Difficulty, and Sex on Group Performance and Member Reactions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 no. 11 (1978): 1224–40. 75 R. B. Lount, Jr. and S. L. Wilk, “Working Harder or Hardly Working? Posting Performance Eliminates Social Loafing and Promotes Social Laboring in Workgroups,” Management Science 60, no. 5 (2014): 1098–106; S. M. Murphy, S. J. Wayne, R. C. Liden, and B. Erdogan, “Understanding Social Loafing: The Role of Justice Perceptions and Exchange Relationships,” Human Relations ( January 2003): 61–84; R. C. Liden, S. J. Wayne, R. A. Jaworski, and N. Bennett, “Social Loafing: A Field Investigation,” Journal of Management (April 2004): 285–304; and W. Stroebe and B. S. Frey, “Self-Interest and Collective Action: The Economics and Psychology of Public Goods,” British Journal of Social Psychology 21, no. 1 (1982): 121–37. 76 A. W. Delton, L. Cosmides, M. Guemo, T. E. Robertson, and J. Tooby, “The Psychosemantics of Free Riding: Dissecting the Architecture of a Moral Concept,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102, no. 6 (2012): 1252–70. 77 S. J. Karau and K. D. Williams, “Social Loaf- ing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 no. 4 (1993): 681–706. 78 C. Rubino, D. R. Avery, S. D. Volpone, et al., “Does Teaming Obscure Low Performance? Exploring the Temporal Effects of Team Per- formance Diversity,” Human Performance 27, no. 5 (2014): 416–34. 79 Karau and Williams, “Social Loafing.” 80 D. L. Smrt and S. J. Karau, “Protestant Work Ethic Moderates Social Loafing,” Group Dynamics-Theory Research and Practice (September 2011): 267–74. 81 M. C. Schippers, “Social Loafing Tendencies and Team Performance: The Compensating Effect of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness,” Academy of Management Learning & Education 13, no. 1 (2014): 62–81. 82 A. Gunnthorsdottir and A. Rapoport, “Embedding Social Dilemmas in Intergroup Competition Reduces Free-Riding,” Organi- zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006): 184–99; and E. M. Stark, J. D. Shaw, and M. K. Duffy, “Preference for Group Work, Winning Orientation, and Social Loaf- ing Behavior in Groups,” Group and Organiza- tion Management 32, no. 6 (2007): 699–723. 83 Lount and Wilk, “Working Harder or Hardly Working?” 84 Gunnthorsdottir and Rapoport, “Embed- ding Social Dilemmas in Intergroup Competi- tion Reduces Free-Riding”; and Stark, Shaw, and Duffy, “Preference for Group Work, Win- ning Orientation, and Social Loafing Behavior in Groups.”

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 320 29/09/17 3:10 pm

Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 321

85 L. L. Greer, “Group Cohesion: Then and Now,” Small Group Research (December 2012): 655–61. 86 D. S. Staples and L. Zhao, “The Effects of Cultural Diversity in Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face Teams,” Group Decision and Negotiation (July 2006): 389–406. 87 N. Chi, Y. Huang, and S. Lin, “A Double- Edged Sword? Exploring the Curvilinear Relationship between Organizational Tenure Diversity and Team Innovation: The Moderat- ing Role of Team-Oriented HR Practices,” Group and Organization Management 34, no. 6 (2009): 698–726. 88 K. J. Klein, A. P. Knight, J. C. Ziegert, B. C. Lim, and J. L. Saltz, “When Team Members’ Values Differ: The Moderating Role of Team Leadership,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 114, no. 1 (2011): 25–36; and G. Park and R. P. DeShon, “A Multi- level Model of Minority Opinion Expression and Team Decision-Making Effectiveness,” Journal of Applied Psychology 95, no. 5 (2010): 824–33. 89 J. S. Chun and J. N. Choi, “Members’ Needs, Intragroup Conflict, and Group Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 99, no. 3 (2014): 437–50. 90 M. Rigoglioso, “Diverse Backgrounds and Personalities Can Strengthen Groups,” Stan- ford Knowledgebase, August 15, 2006, www .stanford.edu/group/knowledgebase/. 91 K. W. Phillips and D. L. Loyd, “When Sur- face and Deep-Level Diversity Collide: The Effects on Dissenting Group Members,” Orga- nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 99 (2006): 143–60; and S. R. Sommers, “On Racial Diversity and Group Decision Making: Identifying Multiple Effects of Racial Com- position on Jury Deliberations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (April 2006): 597–612. 92 Chun and Choi, “Members’ Needs, Intra- group Conflict, and Group Performance.” 93 Y. Zhang and L. Hou, “The Romance of Working Together: Benefits of Gender Diver- sity on Group Performance in China,” Human Relations 65, no. 11 (2012): 1487–508. 94 E. Mannix and M. A. Neale, “What Differ- ences Make a Difference? The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations,”

Psychological Science in the Public Interest (October 2005): 31–55. 95 E. P. Apfelbaum, K. W. Phillips, and J. A. Richeson, “Rethinking the Baseline in Diversity Research: Should We Be Explaining the Effects of Homogeneity?,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 235–44. 96 See M. B. Thatcher and P. C. Patel, “Group Faultlines: A Review, Integration, and Guide to Future Research,” Journal of Management 38, no. 4 (2012): 969–1009. 97 K. Bezrukova, S. M. B. Thatcher, K. A. Jehn, and C. S. Spell, “The Effects of Alignments: Examining Group Faultlines, Organizational Cultures, and Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 97, no. 1 (2012): 77–92. 98 R. Rico, M. Sanchez-Manzanares, M. Antino, and D. Lau, “Bridging Team Faultlines by Combining Task Role Assignment and Goal Structure Strategies,” Journal of Applied Psychology 97, no. 2 (2012): 407–20. 99 D. Cooper, P. C. Patel, and S. B. Thatcher, “It Depends: Environmental Context and the Effects of Faultlines on Top Management Team Performance,” Organization Science 25, no. 2 (2014): 633–52. 100 B. L. Bonner, S. D. Sillito, and M. R. Baumann, “Collective Estimation: Accu- racy, Expertise, and Extroversion as Sources of Intra-Group Influence,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103 (2007): 121–33. 101 J. E. Kammer, W. Gaissmaier, T. Reimer, and C. C. Schermuly, “The Adaptive Use of Recognition in Group Decision Making,” Cognitive Science 38, no. 5 (2014): 911–42. 102 Chun and Choi, “Members’ Needs, Intra- group Conflict, and Group Performance.” 103 I. L. Janis, “Groupthink,” Psychology Today 5, no. 6 (1971): 43–6. 104 E. Burnstein, E. L. Miller, A. Vinokur, S. Katz, and I. Crowley, “Risky Shift Is Eminently Rational,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology 20, no. 1 (1971): 462–71. 105 G. Park and R. P. DeShon, “A Multilevel Model of Minority Opinion Expression and Team Decision-Making Effectiveness,” Journal of Applied Psychology 95, no. 5 (2010): 824–33. 106 R. Benabou, “Groupthink: Collective Delu- sions in Organizations and Markets,” Review of Economic Studies (April 2013): 429–62.

107 J. A. Goncalo, E. Polman, and C. Maslach, “Can Confidence Come Too Soon? Collective Efficacy, Conflict, and Group Performance over Time,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 113, no. 1 (2010): 13–24. 108 See N. Richardson Ahlfinger and J. K. Esser, “Testing the Groupthink Model: Effects of Promotional Leadership and Conformity Predisposition,” Social Behavior & Personality 29, no. 1 (2001): 31–41; and S. Schultz-Hardt, F. C. Brodbeck, A. Mojzisch, R. Kerschreiter, and D. Frey, “Group Decision Making in Hidden Profile Situations: Dissent as a Facilitator for Decision Quality,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91, no. 6 (2006): 1080–93. 109 See I. Yaniv, “Group Diversity and Decision Quality: Amplification and Attenuation of the Framing Effect,” International Journal of Fore- casting (January–March 2011): 41–49. 110 M. P. Brady and S. Y. Wu, “The Aggregation of Preferences in Groups: Identity, Respon- sibility, and Polarization,” Journal of Economic Psychology 31, no. 6 (2010): 950–63. 111 Z. Krizan and R. S. Baron, “Group Polariza- tion and Choice-Dilemmas: How Important Is Self-Categorization?,” European Journal of Social Psychology 37, no. 1 (2007): 191–201. 112 See R. P. McGlynn, D. McGurk, V. S. Effland, N. L. Johll, and D. J. Harding, “Brainstorming and Task Performance in Groups Constrained by Evidence,” Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes (January 2004): 75–87; and R. C. Litchfield, “Brainstorming Reconsidered: A Goal-Based View,” Academy of Management Review 33, no. 3 (2008): 649–68. 113 N. L. Kerr and R. S. Tindale, “Group Performance and Decision-Making,” Annual Review of Psychology 55 (2004): 623–55. 114 C. Faure, “Beyond Brainstorming: Effects of Different Group Procedures on Selection of Ideas and Satisfaction with the Process,” Journal of Creative Behavior 38 (2004): 13–34. 115 P. L. Perrewe, K. L. Zellars, G. R. Ferris, A. M. Rossi, C. J. Kacmar, and D. A. Ralston, “Neutralizing Job Stressors: Political Skill As an Antidote to the Dysfunctional Conse- quences of Role Conflict,” Academy of Manage- ment Journal (February 2004): 141–52.

M09_ROBB9329_18_SE_C09.indd 321 29/09/17 3:10 pm