team work 3

207

take more available resources.59 Perhaps even more surprising is that groups do not like members who are unselfish. When groups perceive members to be contributing too much toward the provision of a good, but then use little of that good, they are targets of expulsion from the group.60 Apparently, such group members are seen as establishing an undesirable behavior standard.

MINORITY AND MAJORITY CONFLICT

Sometimes, conflicts involve subgroups within a given team, involving a majority and a minority. There are two ways in which majorities and minorities influence their teams. One method is through direct influence, such as when they entice other team members to adopt their position. Another method is via indirect influence, in which people in the majority privately agree with the minority.61 When people change their attitudes and behaviors as a result of direct influence or pressure, it is referred to as compliance (early and direct adoption of a position); in contrast, when people change their attitudes and behavior as a result of their own thinking about a subject, it is known as conversion (pri- vate acceptance). Conversion also can occur at a latent level and have a delayed impact, such as when change occurs later, known as the sleeper effect.62 Conversion is a more stable form of attitude change because a person changes inwardly, not just outwardly, to please others. Minorities induce conversion, whereas majorities induce compliance.

Minorities who are perceived as experts serve as a catalyst by increasing the quality of majority members’ cognitions and whether the majority makes more accurate private judgments.63 Minorities in groups are beneficial because they stimulate greater thought about issues.64 When minorities in a group express a differing opinion, the general level of cognitive activity in the group increases and group members engage in more message scrutiny.65 Minority opinions do not simply get groups to focus on a given message; they stimulate much broader thinking about the issue in general and open the doors to considering multiple perspectives, perhaps only one of which might represent the minority’s view.66 Minorities are able to shift norms about helping behavior in a group

59Epley, N., Caruso, E. M., & Bazerman, M. (2006). When perspective taking increases taking: Reactive egoism in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 872–889. 60Parks, C. D., & Stone, A. B. (2010). The desire to expel unselfish members from the group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 303–310. 61Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. London: Academic Press; Nemeth, C., & Wachtler, J. (1974). Creating perceptions of consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for minority influence. Sociometry, 37, 529–540. 62Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1981). Sleeper effect and/or minority effect? Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 1, 199–221. 63Sinaceur, M., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Neale, M. A., O’Neill, O. A., & Haag, C. (2010). Accuracy and perceived expert status in group decisions: When minority members make majority members more accurate privately. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 423–437. 64Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32; Perez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1996). The conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 191–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 65Moscovici, S. (1980). Towards a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209–239). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 66Nemeth, “Differential contributions,” p. 217; Nemeth, C. J. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40, 59–74.

M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 207 10/25/16 3:09 PM