SOCIAL
LOAFING
Linh Tran
Shiza Latif
Franklin Ventura
Bailey Lockaby
TEAMWORK!
BAILEY TO INTRODUCE
Analysis of Social Loafing
Team Strengths & Weaknesses
01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Solutions for Social Loafing
03
02
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Analysis of Social Loafing
01
WHAT IS SOCIAL LOAFING?
Operational define social loafing: Social loafing refers to the concept that people are prone to exert less effort when working collectively as part of a group compared to performing a task alone.
Social loafing is based on the de-individualization that can happen when people work in groups as opposed to working alone
Decrease in social awareness
The difference between free-riding and social loafing
Liden et. al,, 2004
BAILEY
•Point 1: read definition off of the slide
•Point 2:
-This is something that can be done consciously or unconsciously
-There is a decrease in social awareness in group settings versus when someone is working on something alone
●Point 3
-An important distinction here in social loafing is that we are comparing someone’s effort that they exert when they are in a group versus when they are alone
-If they are putting forth less effort in a group in comparison to when they are the only one working on an assignment. This is what constitutes social loafing
●Point 4
-We want to distinguish the difference between social loafing and free riding
-Some of you might be thinking of free riding when you think of social loafing but they are two different, distinct phenomenons
-Free riding is when someone withholds all of their effort on a group project because the individual benefits regardless
-An example of this let’s say for this project, is you got paired up in your group and you do not respond to any of the group’s messages, you never meet with the group, you don’t contribute any research or content to the slides, and you just stand up here with everyone for the presentation
-Not that this would be allowed in this class, but maybe some of the projects you did in high school or undergrad, this happened and the individual’s grade still benefitted regardless of them not contributing at all. That is free riding
-Social loafing on the other hand is when you withhold some but not all effort to a group’s outcome
-So keeping this project as the example, maybe a group member messages back in the group text and they show up to the meetings, but they don’t do any research or add content to any of the slides and someone else does that for them and they show up today and speak on what someone else wrote for them. That is social loafing.
-This is a reason that social loafing can be so hard to confront because technically the group member is contributing something, but their efforts are lacking in comparison to everyone else
•
Liden et. al., 2004
https://ifioque.com/career-workshop/social-loafing
Rope attached to a pressure gauge
One group of participants pulled the rope on their own
Another in the other groups, another participant was added to pulling the rope each time
The total amount of units that was pulled on the rope was assessed for each group
The Ringelmann Rope-Pulling Experiment
BAILEY
●This was one of the pioneering social loafing experiments that was done in 1913
●Ringleman brought participants into a controlled lab setting and attached a rope to a pressure gauge
●He studied the amount of pull that was measured in units when a participant pulled on their own
●Then each time, he added another participant to help pull on the rope
●The total amount of units that was pulled on the rope was assessed for each group
https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-loafing.html
…RESULTS
BAILEY
The more people that were pulling on a rope, the less effort each individual put forward towards pulling the rope
If two individuals pulled separately, they pulled 100 units each. When those two individuals pulled together, they only pulled a total of 186 units, not 200.
This was one of the first studies that sparked researcher’s interest in examining the phenomenon that we would come to know as social loafing
https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-loafing.html
an individual’s belief that a supervisor is aware of their effort
Task Visibility
each group member’s perception of the extent to which he or she needs to interact with other group members when working on a task
Task Interdependence
Explanations for Social Loafing
the number of people in a group can affect social loafing
Group Size
Liden et. al., 2004
BAILEY
●Now we want to dive into some of the explanations for why social loafing occurs
●The first we are going to cover is Task Interdependence
-Task interdependence is each group member’s perception of the extent to which he or she needs to interact with other group members when working on a task
-So when your perception of your need to interact with other group members is high = most people believe that you will not be able to distinguish their effort from the effort of others on the group
-So if I think that it will not be obvious to you guys that I didn’t do the research on this slide (which I did, but let’s say I didn’t), then maybe I’ll let Franklin do it
-Therefore, I would decrease my effort on this project because I won’t be recognized for my individual contributions
-In the work setting, if my coworkers aren’t going to come up to me and give me a high five for my contributions to a proposal that I do at work, I might not do as much
●Point 2
-Next is Task Visibility
-This is a big one in the work and even school setting
-This is an individual’s belief that a supervisor is aware of their efforts
-If an individual thinks that their individual efforts are less visible to their supervisor, then they may be less motivated to put forth effort
-So if Dr. St. John isn’t going to be able to tell specifically what I contributed to this project and I’m not going to look bad to her if I do not contribute as much as my group members, then why would I contribute as much? That’s what this is here.
●Point 3
-So the number of people in a group can affect social loafing
-Just as we read in the Secrets of Great Teamwork, when teams get too big, this can make the team vulnerable to bad communication, fragmentation and social loafing because there is a lack of accountability as group size goes up
-We also read that it is hard to get buy-in when the groups are too large and the author advises to only add members when absolutely necessary
-So when there are too many people in a group, some members might think that their effort or lack thereof will not make a difference to the group outcome
Liden et. al., 2004
Dispersion
Additional explanations
Dehumanization
Attribution of Blame
Lack of Consequences
Alnuami et. al., 2010
BAILEY
●Point 1
-Dispersion, which is when team members are in different physical locations, there is a greater likelihood for social loafing
-So this article compared collated teams to dispersed teams and the main constructs they looked at were idea generation and identification
-They found that dispersed teams generated significantly less ideas than collated teams
-They also found that when teams are collated, there is more identification in the group, meaning that you are known by your group members which will lead to you behaving in ways that are more socially desirable, i.e., not slacking off
-But when teams are dispersed there is a greater likelihood for you to fly under the radar and contribute less
-Again, as we read in the Secrets of Great Teamwork, they talked about the importance of a shared mindset and how distance can lead to the “us vs. them” mentality that can decrease efficiency in teams
-Even though many businesses are going global and distance might just be a reality for some organizations, it is important to proactively approach those situations being knowledgeable of some difficulties that can come up in dispersed teams
●Point 2
-Lack of consequences
-You're working in the right direction if you are starting to address and call out social loafing behaviors in your group, but there will be some people that you will not see a change in behavior unless you introduce consequences
-In a group that I'm in right now, one of my members and I noticed that our other member was not contributing as she should. We would assign her things to do and deadlines to have them done by and they were just not happening. We tried telling her, we'll call her Jane, "hey Jane, we really need to you actually do what you are assigned. We have to actually start chipping away at this project and the deadlines that we set are important to meet so that we don't get overwhelmed later." Well, that didn't work.
-Until we had an idea. We told her, "Hey Jane, this is what each of us are going to write this week and we need to have it done by next Monday. Also, each week we are going to send our outline of responsibilities and deadlines to our professor just so she knows who's doing what and when to expect it by. We're also each going to email our individual parts that we wrote to the professor directly."
-It was a Christmas miracle. All of a sudden, she was writing what she needed to and deadlines were being met
-Because of the Task Visibility that we talked about, it was very clear to our professor everyone's individual contributions now
-So you have to introduce consequences with your social loafers
●Point 3
-Dehumanization is defined as the denial of qualities associated with meaning, interest, and compassion towards others
-Have you ever been in a group and someone has been assigned a section of a project and they don’t do it and you have to do it for them. In your mind you’re thinking, “This is so rude. Does this person not realize that by them not doing their work, I have to stay up late, or miss out on time with my family or friends or lose some of my mental sanity that is in short supply to do extra work on my end for them? That is just wrong for one person to do to another!”
-That’s what we are talking about here
-People who engage in dehumanization do not perceive and consider the feelings, hopes and concerns of others as important or relevant to them
-That’s why some of your social loafing group members might try to personally and emotionally distance themselves from you so that they don’t feel bad about you suffering having to do their work because they have no relational capacity with you
●Point 4
-Attribution of blame is pulling in the dumumanization point
-This is me blaming you for me dehumanizing you and being antisocial towards you because you have made me be that way
-I am the victim.
-Let’s say that me, Dr. St. John and Shiza are in a group together. Well they are just such good friends and they’re always hanging out and they have inside jokes together and they just work so well together and I feel left out! They MADE me be a social loafer because they just don’t include me the way I want to be included in the project.
-In reality, we all started out as friends and communicating together. They’re frustrated with me because we all agreed on a meeting time and I didn’t show up. I also contribute crap work to our project. Naturally, they are going to spend more time together because I don’t physically show up to the meetings. So this is all my own fault.
-But attribution of blame allows a social loafer to be defensive and I actually blame Shiza and Dr. St. John for my social loafing behavior. It helps me not feel guilty for not working hard.
-Now, my self-esteem isn’t threatened.
Alnuami et. al., 2010
https://www.rapidstartleadership.com/social-loafing/
They assume other members of the group will pick up the slack
They believe other team members want to do more of the work at hand
They believe other team members are better suited for the work at hand
The psychology of social loafing
https://monday.com/blog/teamwork/social-loafing/
LINH
What might be going on in the social loafer's head
Maybe if we understand their thought process, we can better address the issue; bridging the gap in miscommunication
https://monday.com/blog/teamwork/social-loafing/
The Sucker Effect
“When people begin to feel that others are slacking off, they try not to get stuck “holding the bag” themselves. In the effort to avoid becoming the “sucker,” overall group output goes down.”
https://www.rapidstartleadership.com/social-loafing/
LINH
What else might be going on in a social loafer’s head
https://www.rapidstartleadership.com/social-loafing/
Solutions for Social Loafing
02
Assign Roles
Emphasizing Purpose
Performance Measurement for everyone
Example: Asana
Emphasize Valuable Individual Contribution
Group Cohesiveness
(Rich et al., 2014)
Preventions
SHIZA
The best way to deal with social loafing is to stop it before it starts. Some preventions are to
· Assign roles: If one is assigned a task that they are responsible for, they are less likely to socially loaf. In the article “making dumb groups smarter”) , assigning roles is one way that is mentioned to make groups wiser
· Emphasizing purpose: Social loafing can be reduced or eliminated when individuals have a dispositional tendency to view the specific tasks they are performing as meaningful. If we go back to the article “team work on the fly”, This is actually one of the steps for teaming.
· Performance Measurement for each individual: This can serve as motivation for them to do well. Group performance researchers have repeatedly observed that individuals exert more effort when their efforts are considered individually
For example: At the end of a workday, you log tasks that have been completed into Asana and This can be viewed by everyone on the team.
· Emphasize Valuable Individual Contribution : It has been found that if an individual perceives that they are making a unique contribution to the group’s effort, or if they feel that their lack of effort will be noticed by the group, they are more likely to exert themselves at a high level
· Group Cohesiveness: is important. When group cohesiveness increases, participation increases. Research shows, Groups formed by students rather than random assignment by the instructors tend to be more cohesive, productive, and experience lower incidences of social loafing.
Team Evaluations
Effective in academic environment
Team Charters (similar to what we did in class)
Establish:
Purpose
Expectations for communication
Strengths and weaknesses
Responsibilities
Performance standards
Evaluations
Keep groups small - harder to slack off without notice
Preventions (cont.)
(Johnson et al., 2019)
LINH
Team evaluations can be incentives for students who are concerned with the evaluations affecting their grade
Team Charters (team agreements)
Getting on the same page before starting work; setting expectations so everyone knows what to expect
team’s purpose
individual strength and weaknesses
establishing behavioral norms
expectations for communication
assigning responsibilities
providing performance standards
examining how team members will be evaluated
Effects of Group Size
LINH
As the number of members in a group (x-axis) increases, performance (y-axis) decreases
The solid curved line represents the output based on group size
The dotted line represents the potential the group could achieve if every member performed at their best
The shaded pink region is the loss in potential due to social loafing
Collective Effort Model
Expectancy
Instrumentality
Valence of Outcome
Individual effort
Individual performance
Group Performance
Group Outcome
Individual Outcome
Identifiability of Individual Effort
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1995)
FRANKLIN
Collective effort model created by Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. in 1995
The model suggests that individuals will be willing to exert effort on a collective task only to the degree that they expect their efforts to be instrumental in obtaining outcomes that they value personally.
1. Expectation, or the degree to which hard effort is expected to lead to good performance/outcome
2. Instrumentality, or the degree to which good performance leads to a corresponding outcome/reward
3. Outcome value, or the degree to which an outcome is perceived as important and desirable
So , in an individual its simple. For example
I will put in a lot of effort because, if I put in a lot effort ill get a better grade and I'm aiming for an A which I care about a lot.
In a group setting, you now have to take into consideration the group outcome and group performance
1. The effort of the individual must be related to his individual performance, which in turn must be related to group performance
2. Group performance must then lead to a desired group outcome associated with a desired outcome for the individual
Important results for the group are:
1. Group Assessment
2. Group (together) affiliation
3. Representative results such as grade
Important results for the individual are:
1. Self-Assessment Information
2. Sense of belonging/usefulness to the group
3. Intrinsic Reward
4. Objective results such as grade
The relative value of the result depends on:
1. Importance and intrinsic value of the task
2. The importance of the task to the individual in the group and the importance of the reward
3. Whether the result contains information for the individual's self-assessment
Lets say I need to receive a score of 70% or higher on the Leadership project to pass the class. Which i really care for
My group and I group don’t divide work but instead say " just add whatever you think is good to the presentation"
My group proactively works on the presentation
With my full effort we can get an A, low effort we can get a B
Group outcome is expected to be an B
Franklin is expected to get an B
Franklin role in the project feels small and therefore he believes his part isn't as important. They’ll pass without his part being the best, therefore he exerts less energy and social loaf.
This is where Preventions come in play.
Team evaluations force me to care more about both group outcome and individual performance.
Team charters and group cohesiveness makes sure our group performance is in check
Assigning roles and emphasizing effort both help keep my individual performance and individual outcome in check
A small group size helps everything by having less forces at play.
Solutions
Confront the loafer
Why?
Encourage
DON’T ATTACK
Consult a higher power
Boot out the loafer
Last resort
Sidestep the loafer
Lumsden, G., & Lumsden, D. (1997)
FRANKLIN
Confront the loafer
If the steps above are insufficient, either the leader of the group, a designated member, or the group as a whole should approach the loafer and ask why the lethargic attitude exists.
Encourage stronger participation, reaffirm the importance of the loafer’s contribution to the team effort, and solicit suggestions regarding how the group might help the person become a contributor.
Do not name-call or personally attack the loafer.
Consult a higher power
When all of the above steps fail, consult a supervisor, teacher, or someone with greater authority than the group members and ask for advice.
The authority figure may need to discuss the problem with the loafer
Boot out the loafer
This is a last resort.
Do not begin with this step, as many groups would prefer to do.
You may not have this option available, however
Sidestep the loafer
Reconfigure individual responsibilities and tasks so even if the loafer contributes nothing to the group effort, the group can still maneuver around the loafer and produce a high-quality result
Team Strengths & Weaknesses
03
Team Strengths & Weaknesses
| Linh | Franklin |
| Bailey | Shiza |
LINH
Communication Styles
| Linh | Franklin |
| Bailey | Shiza |
Doer
Influencer
Thinker
Connector
LINH
Each member of our group identifies with one of the 4 communication styles
High Achiever
Impatient
Doer (Linh)
COMMUNICATION STYLE ATTRIBUTES
Excel at Work They Like
Combative, Critical, Sarcastic
Thinker (Bailey)
Charismatic, People Pleaser
Procrastinating
Influencer (Franklin)
Empathy & Caring
Stubborn
Connector (Shiza)
LINH, FRANKLIN, MAYBE BAILEY
We complement each other and maintain balance in communication
Keeping each other informed about progress
Keep each other in check i.e., preventing social loafing
Bridging gaps in miscommunications; understanding each other’s differences
Those who are strong in tasks but weak in relationships complement those who are weak at tasks but strong in relationships and vice versa
Exercise in class was enlightening on how to communicate with other styles
Franklin
As an influencer I tend to put relationships over work
Strnghts as charismatidc and a people pleaser
Makes me prone to pprocras
SUCCESSFUL PREVENTIONS & SOLUTIONS
Group size
Contract
Cohesiveness
Common goal
Evaluations
LINH
What methods worked for our group to prevent social loafing and thus succeeding
Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team Size, Dispersion, and Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Teams: A Perspective on the Theory of Moral Disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 203–230. https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222270109
Downer, K. (2021, August 25). Stop social loafing: 6 ways to get everyone working. RapidStart Leadership. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://www.rapidstartleadership.com/social-loafing/
Hoffman, R. (2020, June 22). Social Loafing: Definition, examples and theory. Social Loafing: Definition, Examples & Theory | Simply Psychology. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-loafing.html#:~:text=Social%20loafing
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. (2004). Social Loafing: A Field Investigation. Journal of Management, 30(2), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.02.002
REFERENCES
Jasmine Linabary, P. D. (2012). Confronting and preventing social loafing. Go to the cover page of Small Group Communication. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://smallgroup.pressbooks.com/chapter/social-loafing/
Johnson, K., & Horn, D. (2019). Mitigating the impact of social loafing through the use of team charters andTeam Evaluations. JOURNAL OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v8n4a3
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1995). Social Loafing: Research Findings, Implications, and Future Directions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(5), 134–140
Law, M. (2018, July 18). Agile fixes social loafing. LinkedIn. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/agile-fixes-social-loafing-michael-law/
Lumsden, G., & Lumsden, D. (1997). Communicating in groups and teams : sharing leadership (2nd ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Rich, J., Owens, D., Johnson, S., Mines, D., & Capote, K. (2014). Some Strategies for Reducing Social Loafing in Group Projects. Global Journal of HUMAN-SOCIAL SCIENCE: A Arts & Humanities - Psychology, 14(5).
REFERENCES (cont.)
THANKS!
Linh Tran
Shiza Latif
Franklin Ventura
Bailey Lockaby
.MsftOfcThm_Background1_Fill_v2 { fill:#FFE3D8; }