Self Esteem/Self Efficacy and Communication/Team Building

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b65… 1/27

6Groups, Teams, and Decision Making

Verdateo/iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter and studying the materials, you should be able to:

Identify the various types of organizational groups and the stages of group development. Evaluate and manage the various properties of groups. Describe how to work successfully in team settings. Analyze how rational and nonrational decision-making methods are used to resolve organizational problems. Describe other factors that in�luence decision making.

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b65… 2/27

Technological advances have made it possible for people all over the world to effectively unite under one cause.

RamCreativ/iStock/Thinkstock

6.1 Types of Groups and Stages of Development In today's fast-paced world of commerce, one trend has accelerated: Many organizational tasks are increasingly complex, including decisions to be made on behalf of the organization. One consequence of this trend has been greater reliance on collectives of employees to complete assignments and make decisions. The number and types of groups and teams present in the workplace has expanded, including some with international components.

In this chapter, groups and teams are examined with the goal of improving organizational performance and your ability to manage them effectively. Some people might believe that the terms "team" and "group" are the same. Similarities between teams and groups are that they both consist of a small set of people and that they both seek to achieve goals. Recent management and organizational behavior literature, however, suggests several differences between the two, as will be explored later in this chapter.

Decision-making processes within the context of teams and groups are also presented. Managers do not make decisions in a vacuum. That is, any decision-maker will be subject to the opinions and voices of others in his or her peer group or in more formal group decisionmaking settings.

The tactics that assist in building quality groups and teams and the experiences of group members involved in projects funded by the National Institutes of Health, as described in OB in Action: Effective Medical Efforts, provide several valuable lessons for team leaders and supervisors.

OB in Action: Effective Medical Efforts

"Team science" is the term that has been assigned to what have been described as "megacollaborations" of scientists seeking to solve major medical problems. These groups, which are highly diverse, may span national boundaries and company af�iliations while speaking multiple languages. Despite these challenges, a number of such groups still succeed and become highly functioning teams. How is this possible?

Michelle Bennett and Howard Gadlin, high-ranking administrators in the National Institutes for Mental Health hierarchy, sought to �ind the common characteristics of these collectives of individuals that were able to succeed. Through in-depth interviews with members of both effective and unsuccessful efforts, Bennett and Gadlin discovered several common themes (Paul, 2012).

First, the researchers pointed out the importance of bridging the physical distance between group members. Doing so can be accomplished either via videoconference or actual in-person meetings, the latter being the best approach. The interactions helped build trust between members and create a shared vision or purpose.

Second, language is important. The members of the group need to clearly understand the terms being used so that disagreements do not emerge over what a speci�ic word or idea means. Closely related is the idea that all members should fully understand what their roles and contributions were to be in the overall effort.

Third, a quality group tends to feature established or experienced researchers working with newcomers. The blend of more traditional voices with new ideas seems to spur better outcomes, including becoming a functioning team.

Fourth, the work itself requires direction. The groups that are able to "modularize" projects, with distinct assignments carrying identi�iable marking points, help keep individual members working on their own tasks rather than interfering with the efforts of others.

Naturally, these efforts need a well-coordinated leadership structure as well. The lesson to be learned for other forms of business may very well be that even massive, complex projects can be broken down and made more manageable, which in turn makes success more possible.

Re�lection and Application Questions

1. Which difference—country, company, or language—would be the most dif�icult problem to overcome when building a team or group? 2. What role would "timing" play in the success levels of these groups of professionals? 3. Would the principles outlined here �it with every type of team or group, in every industry or setting? Why or why not?

Types of Groups

In business organizations, employees routinely encounter group activities. A group consists of two or more people, interacting, with a common purpose or goal (Schein, 1980). Groups can be formal or informal. A formal group is established by the organization and seeks to achieve company goals and objectives, such as a work group, committee, or project group.

An informal group, or a friendship group, emerges without the endorsement of organizational leaders and does not have a designated structure or work toward organizational goals other than socialization and friendship (Shirky, 2004). Table 6.1 presents some common formal and informal groups present in the workplace.

Formal and informal groups consist of four types of members: the leader, opinion leaders, members in good standing, and the gatekeeper. The leader directs group activities. Formal leaders are assigned by the organization. Informal leaders emerge based on the group's wishes. Opinion leaders are those individuals who are most closely aligned with the leader. The name comes from their willingness to express group values. Members in good standing are those included in the group who do not share in any leadership function. The gatekeeper determines who will and who will not be included in the group. The gatekeeper will be a member, opinion leader, or leader. At times the entire group serves this role, known as the gatekeeping function.

Table 6.1: Common types of formal and informal groups

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b65… 3/27

Common types Examples

Formal

Work groups (command group) The sports desk at a newspaper The accounting department at a company

Committees A workplace safety committee An employee bene�its committee

Project group (task force) A group assigned to write a report about an event A group assigned to redesign the interior of a store A group asked to develop a new product or service

Informal

Groups formed around an activity A group that meets to play cards during lunch A company softball team

Groups formed due to shared sentiments A group of single mothers A prayer group

Groups formed due to close physical associations People who work on the same �loor People who work for a company at a remote location

Stages of Group Development

One commonly cited approach used to explain how groups evolve over time was developed by Tuckman and Jensen (1977). The model suggests a sequence in which individuals gradually surrender a sense of independence in favor of greater interdependence. While the sequence may not be as precise as the one depicted in Figure 6.1, it does provide a general sense of how groups tend to operate. Managers and leaders can assist group functioning at every stage of development, which will help ensure the group achieves its goals.

Figure 6.1: Stages of group development

As a group evolves, individuals gradually give up a sense of independence in favor of greater dependence and interdependence.

Source: Adapted from Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2 (4), 419–427.

Forming Initially, new members of a group are likely to distrust one another to some extent and to experience feelings of uncertainty. Two behaviors appear in the �irst stage of group development, known as the forming stage. First, group members try out actions and activities to see if others in the group deem them acceptable. The uncertainty associated with being assigned to a new group means some acts, opinions, or behaviors will be suitable while others will not. At this stage, personal independence is high and interdependence is low.

Second, the group leader (if one has been designated) or those seeking to lead (if a leader has not been appointed) will take some �irst tentative actions, such as setting a meeting time or agenda. In the forming stage, managers can make members feel as comfortable as possible and establish basic ground rules to ensure the group gels and can work together well. The forming stage ends when suf�icient compliance suggests that members see themselves as part of the larger group.

Communication can play a key role in the forming stage. Groups that meet more frequently, leading to communication and interaction, may �ind it easier to adapt to the new circumstances. Many times a successful leader makes certain the group can get together often, with the goal of breaking down some of the early barriers to participation.

Storming Although members now view themselves as part of something, they sometimes disagree with the constraints imposed by the group or simply test to see what the limits are. In the storming stage, the leader faces resistance as individuals seek to discover their place in the group's structure (Tuckman, 1965).

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b65… 4/27

An effective leader works to resolve con�licts and differences of opinion. If the leader cannot manage the group successfully, the possibility of subgroups, member procrastination, con�licts between members, and open rebellion emerges. Group survival may be at risk. Conversely, when the leader succeeds, individuals begin to relinquish some level of independence and become more dependent and interdependent on other members of the group.

Norming The close of the storming stage occurs when a leader has become �irmly established, often through the efforts of another member who challenges the group to come together. Closer relationships build between members, and discussions of power become less emotional and more matter of fact.

Norms, which are implicit or explicit rules that govern behaviors in the group, begin to emerge. The norming stage is complete when members share a common set of expectations about behaviors and contributions to the group. As shown in Table 6.2, norms apply to three main areas in both formal and informal groups. In fact, many times norms overlap between the two groups. Norms can be formally or informally sanctioned, with approval or disapproval by group members. Someone engaged in a pleasant conversation with a supervisor, in an organization where the norm is to see management as adversaries, will probably be accused of being a "brownnoser," or worse.

Table 6.2: Types of norms Area of behavior Example of norm

Effort (units of production) Time on the job/overtime Sales calls, sales totals, follow-ups with customers

Work behaviors (use of language and levels of formality) Clothes worn Following or ignoring work rules or procedures

Social behaviors (of�ice friendships and romances) Fraternization between management and labor

Norms tend to develop slowly but then become dif�icult to change. They apply to the workplace more than to off-work activities. They also apply to behaviors rather than private feelings and thoughts. Members may "go along" with norms they think are foolish, although high-status group members may choose to ignore them. In general, norms summarize group in�luence processes, including the rules for joining and maintaining membership (Hackman, 2003). In the norming stage, the leader can make sure that unethical or counterproductive norms do not emerge.

Norms can provide vital organizational functions when they clarify the group or organization's key values and convey a sense of identity. Enforcing norms can assist an individual with either meeting behavioral expectations or avoiding making behavioral mistakes. Some authors argue norms help the group or the organization to survive (Feldman, 1984), while acknowledging that counterproductive norms may also emerge that hinder organizational success.

Performing When the group reaches the point at which the primary activities revolve around solving task problems, the performing stage has opened. In the performing stage, the leader facilitates group activities to ensure the group keeps functioning. Open communication occurs between members as they cooperate with and support one another. Any disputes are handled quickly and constructively (Mason & Grif�in, 2005).

In the performing stage, interdependence reaches its peak and independence has been surrendered as much as it will be. Members have learned to depend on one another. Ongoing work groups and committees that reach the performing stage remain there unless drastic events interfere. Project teams end when the task is complete. Some informal groups have an end point, such as when a bowling team's season �inishes. These groups then move to the �inal stage.

Adjourning Groups that successfully complete tasks often end with a ceremony or celebration. These take the form of parties, of�icial statements of appreciation by company leaders, and even graduations and mock funerals. In the adjourning stage, a leader can summarize group accomplishments and express gratitude for good work. Individuals may resume a stronger sense of independence as the group disbands.

Criticisms of the Stages of Group Development Approach In spite of widespread usage of the �ive-stage model, criticisms have emerged. There is no clear-cut evidence that a group could not go through the stages in an "all-at-once" fashion or that some groups might actually move forward through the stages but then regress backwards when con�licts arise. Further, the context within which the group operates may strongly in�luence how people interact. As an example, a group of three pilots who have never �lown together quickly becomes a cohesive force due to strong reliance on training and past practices (Oldham & Fried, 1987).

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b65… 5/27

SUBMITSUBMITSUBMIT

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b65… 6/27

6.2 Group Properties In addition to norms, groups exhibit other properties that in�luence their functioning and levels of success. Three of the most important properties are the roles played by members as they participate, the size of the group, and the level of group cohesiveness. Group leaders and company managers can seek to affect and manage these issues.

Roles Performed in Groups

Groups without a degree of structure experience a lack of direction and even chaos. In the stages of storming, norming, and performing, members begin to enact roles, which facilitate group functioning. In groups, members play roles as they are assigned or as they evolve. The �irst ingredient in the process is a person's perception of how a role should be enacted. For example, someone who assigns a member to the role of secretary in a committee may believe that the person in that role rarely speaks in meetings and instead concentrates on taking copious notes, because the individual is quiet by nature but would be effective at preparing minutes and other group missives.

Factors That Shape Roles Five major factors shape the nature of a role: expectations, norms, performance, evaluation, and sanctions. As illustrated in Figure 6.2, these factors are interrelated and interact with each other, including inputs provided by the person performing the role. The term used to describe this interactive process is that a role is socially constructed. Consequently, group members learn about how they are expected to behave as other group members

project their expectations through subtle clues and overt statements. A group member often predicts role expectations through role perceptions. establish and communicate norms—the "oughts" and "shoulds" of roles—which serve as inner guides as a person learns the role (Biddle & Thomas, 1966). socially negotiate the person's role performance, or actual behavior, over time. Different people play the same role, such as group leader, in different ways, often depending on the organizational and group contexts. The role performance by a detective leading an investigation into a homicide will be vastly different from the leader of an advertising team trying to design a new commercial. provide feedback (approval and disapproval) on role performance through role evaluation. impose sanctions, which are actions designed to maintain or change behaviors. Negative sanctions include criticism, caustic comments, ridicule, and exclusion from the group. Positive sanctions, such as including someone, praising the individual, or using the formal reward system, often lead to greater conformity to group norms and role expectations (Secord & Backman, 1964).

These factors, as imposed by other members of the group, result in a kind of negotiation in which the role becomes socially constructed. The person playing the role is the actor and other members of the group are called others (Shaw & Costanzo, 1982). Some role theorists refer to these concepts as "position" (actor) and "counter-position" (others).

Figure 6.2: Role-shaping factors

Roles are in�luenced by many factors, including expectations, norms, performance, evaluation, and sanctions. These factors, which are socially constructed, in�luence the way individuals play their roles within a group.

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b65… 7/27

Group member roles are played in the context of the broader job environment, and group members can play different roles at work. Figure 6.3 displays main forces that shape a person's on-the-job role, in addition to her or his speci�ic group role. Through continual negotiation of these organizational forces, as well as the in�luence of those in an individual's immediate group, the role will be enacted and performed.

Figure 6.3: Roles at work

At work, some of the factors that in�luence an individual's on-the-job role include the job itself, interactions with coworkers, personal goals, the relationship with a leader, and the organization's structure.

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b65… 8/27

Figure 6.3 suggests that part of a person's role will be determined by the job to which the individual has been assigned. The role of "police of�icer" is quite different than the role of "advertising creative." The role will be shaped, in part by the job description an applicant sees when seeking to obtain the job and via the job speci�ication, which lists eligibility requirements and quali�ications. The goal of these two documents is to make certain a �it exists between the employee and the job itself.

Next, the goals a person sets within the context of a job will shape the role. A salesperson who sets goals to "�ind new customers" will be different than one who seeks to "keep our current customers happy." Goal-setting programs such as management by objectives (MBO) provide role clarity, because the individual has a good sense of the tasks that the organization deems to be valuable.

An employee's supervisor has a major impact on the nature of the role. A directive and authoritarian supervisor elicits behaviors that will differ from a participative leader. Through interactions with a supervisor, the employee should learn what is expected and the types of behaviors, actions, and language to avoid on the job.

Finally, the organization's structure partially dictates the nature of the role. A centralized and mechanistic structure dictates the lower-ranking employees are "order followers." A more organic and decentralized structure empowers individuals to make decisions and provide inputs to those of higher rank.

Jobs, goals, leadership, and structure provide vessels through which role expectations, norms, evaluation, performance and sanctions will be delivered. These messages help the individual understand how to cope with organizational constraints and the manner in which the job should be performed.

Factors That Disrupt Role Performance Three major forces can disrupt effective role performance: role con�lict, role ambiguity, and role overload. Role con�lict occurs when an individual confronts differing role expectations. These can be the result of differing task instructions or due to other causes, such as being negatively sanctioned for behavior that a person thought was part of the role.

An intra-role (within the role) con�lict takes place when an employee faces two expectations that are not in agreement. A restaurant server who is told to give personal, attentive service that makes patrons feel comfortable may also be encouraged to "turn the table over" or get people to leave as quickly as possible, in order to accommodate more guests. Achieving both objectives will be extremely dif�icult.

An inter-role con�lict takes place when a role or task performed on the job clashes with personal feelings or values. The role of attentive parent may con�lict with the role of reliable employee, especially when being reliable requires travel, working at night, or long hours away from family (Peterson et al., 1995). Someone who believes a task is unethical but required by management experiences an inter-role con�lict.

A manager can help reduce role con�lict in a few ways:

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b65… 9/27

Factors that are disruptive to role performance can be broken down into three types: con�lict, ambiguity, and overload.

Davis De Lossy/Photodisc/Thinkstock

Provide clear task instructions so the employee better understands expectations. Make sure employees only answer to one leader (group and departmental) so they do not receive con�licting messages. Foster a socially and morally acceptable climate so the employee encounters less personal con�lict with job requirements.

Role ambiguity results from lack of clarity about a role. An employee who complains, "I don't know what it is I'm supposed to be doing," expresses role ambiguity. It appears when a person �irst begins a position or joins a new organization. Role ambiguity may also materialize following dramatic changes in the group or in a company, such as when downsizing or restructuring takes place. The individual will be unclear about new job responsibilities. Role ambiguity has been related to both job dissatisfaction and levels of personal stress. It can be reduced through managerial efforts to increase role clarity, such as more speci�ic job instructions, feedback, and coaching. This could also include creating goal-setting programs. When hiring, managers should follow a careful selection process, so that the person knows why she or he is being hired, and encourage quality leader–member relationships.

Role overload comes from being asked to do too much within a role. The person may have been mismatched in the �irst place and was unprepared to tackle a position or occupation. Others experience overload when managers place increasing demands on them without allocating suf�icient time to accomplish the work. Role overload has been linked to job dissatisfaction, stress-related problems, and con�licts with others. Managers should seek to assist new or less experienced employees and help during "crunch time" as needed.

Group Size

One variable a manager can carefully construct when seeking to optimize performance is the size of the group. The goal of the group should be the primary determinant of its size. Three basic objectives associated with a group are

producing an item/completing a project solving problems collecting information/input

When producing an item or completing a project represents the primary goal, an interesting phenomenon occurs. As groups increase in size, productivity rises as well, but at a diminishing rate. In other words, adding a seventh member to a group will increase the productivity of that group, but the increase will not be one-seventh more, but instead something less than that amount. Researchers suggest that as the size of the group increases, the amount of effort contributed per member declines (Shepperd, 1993). At times, organizational dictates such as budget constraints or higher-level management preferences constrain the original size of the group in terms of the number of members. Later, the same dictates may also limit the leader's ability to add members.

In some instances, extreme declines in individual effort result from the addition of new group members. Social loa�ing occurs when group members give less effort to a group than they would if working individually. At the extreme, social loa�ing involves a member taking a free ride and contributing nearly nothing. Social norms, often noted by group members, might offer a method to induce a social loafer to at least provide some effort (Murphy, Wayne, Liden, & Erdogan, 2003). When a social loafer's peers state the individuals should "carry their own weight" or "do their fair share," and make statements such as "we are all expected to be involved (or chip in), and that's only right," the implied norm becomes that social loa�ing is unacceptable.

Problem solving may also be in�luenced by the size of the group. Additional members past a certain number (normally about seven), may make the processes more complex. Additional inputs and points of view may lead to a greater potential for con�lict on the one hand and compromise rather than the best possible choice on the other. At the same time, a small group consisting of three or four members may be disrupted by personality problems, wherein two persons at odds may slow down the process and not reach an ideal solution.

Group size also affects collecting information and input. Suf�icient size leads to a greater probability that all necessary input has been collected. A small group (2 or 3 members) may suffer from "tunnel vision," by failing to examine all possible points of view or sources of quality information. A large group may be subject to information overload, where too many minute points are made and decision-making or problem-solving processes break down as a result.

Consequently, managers often compose task groups of �ive to seven members. Fewer than �ive reduces productivity due to the small size of the group. Seven will be close to the point at which diminishing returns per new member become more noticeable. Also, some research suggests that groups with odd numbers of members (�ive or seven) have better chances of success (Yetton & Bottger, 1983).

Group Cohesiveness

The degree of goal commitment, conformity, cooperation, and group control over members indicates the level of group cohesiveness. Further, the degree of cohesion in a group affects productivity and performance, as depicted in Figure 6.4.

Figure 6.4: Group cohesiveness

The right balance of cohesion within a group can lead to success. Too little cohesion may result in a lack of cooperation, whereas too much cohesion may lead to setting norms that reduce output or decrease levels of effort.

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 10/27

As shown, a group with too little cohesion often suffers from a lack of productivity. The problems associated with low cohesion follow the concepts found in its de�inition. There will be goal disagreement rather than agreement. Members do not conform to any potential group norms. They fail to cooperate, and group sanctions do not affect them.

In the middle of Figure 6.4, groups with desirable levels of cohesion tend to enjoy the highest levels of success. The bene�its of cohesive groups include:

productivity members helping those experiencing problems extra effort given during a crisis members working without supervision a positive social atmosphere emerging

Clearly, managers have vested interests in developing and maintaining cohesive groups (Litterer, 1973; Seashore, 1954).

Figure 6.4 also suggests a zone in which the level of cohesion has grown to the point that problems begin to emerge. Overly cohesive groups are more likely to set norms that reduce output or lower levels of effort. Comments such as "take it easy" or "Are you trying to be a brownnoser?" imply the norm that too much effort is unacceptable to the group.

Overly cohesive groups may also be inclined to view other groups as rivals and create unnecessary con�licts. At times, the formal leader in the group becomes unable to function due to the in�luence of the informal leader.

The most substantial problem with overly cohesive groups, however, is labeled groupthink. Groupthink results when group pressures for conformity become so intense that the group avoids unusual, minority, or unpopular views. At the extreme, groupthink becomes a process by which the group develops a sense of invulnerability, believing it can function without outside in�luence or sanction. The group self-censors information and fails to perform effectively with organizational con�ines (Janis, 1991). This includes failing to �ind the best solution while encouraging the conformity of opinion, often around the wrong decision. The FBI's investigation of Penn State University's athletic program and university leadership team may serve as an example. A Time magazine article (Cohen and DeBenedet, 2012) argues that the decisions made in the attempt to protect the university's reputation by hiding the sexually-predatory conduct of Coach Jerry Sandusky can be attributed to such groupthink processes. The decision makers were far removed from external and potentially more objective and rational opinions about how to handle the situation in an ethical and legal fashion.

Group cohesiveness and productivity or performance will be affected by a series of internal factors. Table 6.3 summarizes circumstances in which these factors in�luence the level of cohesion. Group size, as noted, in�luences both cohesion and productivity. Opportunities to interact come from proximity as well as scheduled formal and informal gatherings. Homogeneity has become far less common in most places of work. One method used to build a sense of heterogeneity is to create overarching superordinate goals, or objectives to which all members agree to help bond the group. For example, members of a workplace safety committee, while completely diverse in terms of age, race, gender, and occupational type, can agree to the goals of keeping workers safe and lowering health insurance costs in the process. Doing so provides commonality in the presence of heterogeneity

Group status can make group membership more or less desirable. An outside threat can be real or one suggested by management as a potential problem. Interdependence and independence result from norming processes. Membership stability is linked to opportunities to interact and bond. Effective leaders understand individual member needs; ineffective ones drive wedges between members (Homans, 1950).

Table 6.3: Factors affecting cohesiveness levels Increase cohesiveness Decrease cohesiveness

Proper size (4–7 members) Too many members

Opportunities to interact Isolation

Similarities (homogeneity) between members Dissimilar members

High status within organization Low public image of group

Presence of outside threat Placid environment

Interdependence among members Opportunity to join other groups

Attractive (to members) group goals Unsatisfactory goals or goal disagreements

Stable membership High turnover

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b65… 11/27

Effective leader Ineffective leader

Group Outliers and Noncompliance

In many groups, one individual who requires attention will be the outlier. This person disagrees with or wishes to avoid compliance with norms. The outlier will often be a more intelligent member of the group. Noncompliance involves the activities shown in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4: Noncompliance with group norms Activity Examples

Rebellion (ignores the norm, deliberately violates the norm)

Wears jeans in violation of dress code, uses foul language in professional setting, overproduces relative to others in the group (rate buster, speed king)

Creative individualism (follows norms yet is innovative) Feigns indifference in required meeting, goes through the motions, mumbles under breath while following orders or directions, overdoes courtesy

Conformity (complies grudgingly, expresses disillusionment in other, safe environments)

Complains on break, at home, or during drive home

The leadership role in any group involves guiding a group outlier in such a manner that the individual does not negatively in�luence the other members (Schein, 1968). The leader can engage in a variety of tactics to reduce the in�luence, such as by speaking privately with the outlier �irst about his or her behavior; talking with other group members and asking for their reactions to outburst and other noncompliance activities; working to have the individual reassigned, or encouraging peer pressure to let the individual know others in the group do not approve of the person's actions and comments. Part of successful leadership involves the ability to creatively �ind ways to reach an outlier and bring the person in line or to reduce or eliminate any negative impact created by the individual.

SUBMITSUBMITSUBMIT

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 12/27

A team is made up of several individuals who, ideally, function as one.

Ondine32/iStock/Thinkstock

Cross-Functional Teams

General Mills (UK) employees discuss the bene�its of cross- functional teams.

Critical Thinking Questions

6.3 Teams Teams become distinct from groups when synergies, or increased levels of performance, emerge from greater interdependence and shared effort (Katzenbach & Smith, 1999; Rico, Sanchez-Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson, 2008). Characteristics of teams include the following:

sharing leadership responsibilities among members shifting from individual responsibility to individual plus collective responsibility evaluating success based on team outcomes rather than individual outcomes improved collective problem solving

Trust constitutes an additional key component of a team. Effective teams go beyond interaction and move to the point of collaboration.

At times, groups and teams share certain characteristics. They both provide venues for socialization and assist in communication and decision-making processes. One perspective suggests that a team is a group that has successfully negotiated the forming, storming, and norming aspects of development and has moved to the performing stage. At the same time, it is clear that many collectives of employees (groups) are formed that do not reach such a level of collaboration and coordination. Before analyzing additional factors related to team success or failure, the �irst step is to understand the types of teams utilized in organizations.

Types of Teams

Four of the most common types of teams are:

self-managed work teams problem-solving teams cross-functional teams virtual teams

Each presents potential bene�its and challenges to the overall organization.

Self-Managed Work Teams Many organizations believe that certain types of work can be successfully directed by employees rather than supervisors. A self-managed work team consists of a group of employees who are assigned managerial responsibilities combined with work tasks. The managerial activities performed by members of self- managed work teams include planning activities, scheduling work, assigning tasks to individual team members, overseeing the pace of work, making on-the-spot decisions, and facilitating some elements of the control function. In some instances self-managed teams conduct internal performance evaluations.

Research results regarding the effectiveness of self-managed teams have been mixed. Some evidence suggests team members report higher levels of job satisfaction (Cordery, Mueller, & Smith, 1991; Van Mierlo, Rutte, Kompier, & Doorewaard, 2005). In contrast, supervisors who would lose authority in self- management team settings were logically inclined to resist such a change, viewing the move as a threat to job security. Also, some self-managed teams did not function well during periods of downsizing (Zemke, 1993).

Self-managed work teams would appear to have better chances for success when employees are well trained and perform more sophisticated jobs. The organization must be able to support the program with rewards for team performance. Firms exhibiting centralization or strong patterns of managerial control at top levels are not the best candidates for such programs.

Problem-Solving Teams When members of an organization are placed into groups to examine speci�ic organizational problems or processes, a problem-solving team may emerge. Teamwork occurs when members are willing to share information, cooperate, and seek to achieve team as well as individual objectives. Problem-solving teams can at times resemble quality circles and at other times resemble project teams. Such teams remain popular vehicles for dealing with various organizational issues.

Cross-Functional Teams A cross-functional team consists of employees from different areas in the company that are brought together for a speci�ic purpose. Combining experts to work on an exciting problem, task, or issue often leads to effective cross-functional teams. Teams can be assigned to develop a new product, such as has been the norm at Apple Inc.

Committees that endure and succeed take on characteristics of cross-functional teams. Such committees reach the performing stage of group development. As a result, members often remain with the committee over longer periods of time.

Cross-functional teams at times resemble task forces (see Table 6.1). Many automobile manufacturers have employed task forces to coordinate complex projects. Harley-Davidson relies on collectives of individuals from various departments to help manage product lines, including the design of the product, manufacturing, and even contacts with suppliers (Brunelli, 1999). The company has expanded the roles of teams to improve safety on the job, as described in the OB in Action feature box in Section 6.5.

Virtual Teams Today's technologies allow for members of groups to meet in cyberspace rather than in physical space. Virtual teams employ Internet and digital technologies to achieve common goals, such as collaborating, sharing information, solving problems, and scheduling activities. Virtual teams are formed for short-term projects as well as long-range, ongoing issues.

It's All About the People From Title: Organizational Cultures and Group Norms

(https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753&xtid=128516)

  0:00 / 2:42 1x © I f b All Ri ht R d L th 02 43

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 13/27

1. What might be some of the challenges of cross- functional teamwork?

2. How might cross-functional teamwork strengthen a business?

Managers must make strategic decisions when it comes to composing a team.

Ancika/iStock/Thinkstock

Virtual teams enjoy the advantages of reducing travel costs and allowing people from remote locations to participate. They are �lexible in the sense that meetings can be arranged fairly quickly, especially when compared to meetings that require travel to a distant place. Volvo and Lockheed Martin have both made effective use of the advantages of these types of teams (Ante, 2003; Crock, 2003; Naughton, 2003). Many current examples exist, including the success of Seamless Medical Systems, which provides a mobile, modular, digital platform to be used by physicians and clinical staff employees along with linkages to be used by patients as part of their care and treatment. (Ferrazi, 2014).

An argument can be made that a virtual team would be better named a "virtual group." The reasoning connected to this interpretation would be that virtual collaborations do not take on the elements of trust and member interdependence that are part of the team concept. Three limitations of virtual teams have been described, two of which reduce a group's ability to take on team-like characteristics.

First, in virtual meetings, paraverbal cues such as voice tone and in�lection, and nonverbal cues like eye contact, distance, gestures, and facial expression, cannot as easily be transmitted. This limits the richness of communications between team members.

Second, socialization will be highly reduced. As virtual meetings conclude and members go on to other work, they cannot remain "in the room" to discuss issues and fraternize.

The third problem associated with virtual teams is that members will most likely meet at differing times, depending on location. A meeting that begins at 4:00 p.m. in San Diego takes place at 7:00 p.m. in New York, a time when most people have left the of�ice. International virtual meetings can become even more problematic.

Cross-cultural differences potentially in�luence the nature of a virtual team's functioning. Patterns of communication including directness versus more carefully- couched suggestions and opinions, the role of deference to members of the opposite sex as well as to those in managerial positions, plus other cultural norms and features can limit trust and interdependence. Increased interactions and proactive acknowledgement of these potential nuances help resolve any potential problems that emerge from cultural differences.

In summary, the four types of teams are prevalent in many of today's companies. Part of the reason is that these teams are essentially more highly evolved groups in the performing stage. Managerial efforts designed to improve functioning can assist self-managed teams, problemsolving groups that become teams, cross-functional teams following the same path, and virtual teams.

Effective Teams

As with quality groups, effective teams have certain requisites. When moving beyond group composition toward more cohesive teams, four elements deserve consideration: the composition of the team, the design of the work, contextual factors, and process variables.

Team Composition Managers can play important roles in designing teams with the best chances for success. Doing so involves making sure the right mix of personalities and skill sets are assigned to projects. Also, those chosen should have indicated an interest in being included in the group. Clear instructions allow members to �itin and move past storming and norming issues. In the same manner as a group, a team should consist of the most appropriate number of members. In the case of cohesion, one factor that can work against a team's well-being occurs when a single member of a minority has been placed on a team. The individual may feel ostracized, even in groups where acceptance is high; the lone status of a single person from a different group may cause discomfort and stilted conversation among members. In general, member selection can make or break a team (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Management should be aware of creating situations in which only one person with a major difference such as age, gender, or ethnicity is part of a group, instead looking to add additional members to create greater diversity

Work Design The logical connection between a team and a project is complexity. Simple tasks are better handled by single individuals. Consequently, work design in a team setting involves a more complicated assignment. Members of the team should believe they have suf�icient authority and autonomy to �inalize work in the best manner possible. When a project or task has an end point, it possesses task identity, which was noted as a motivational factor in Chapter 5. Further, the interactions between members, when coupled with an outcome that helps others in the organization, generate feelings of task signi�icance, another motivational force. In essence, the design of the work should be focused on interesting, challenging, and important organizational chores (Kirkman & Rosen, 2000).

Contextual Variables Effective teams operate in inviting contexts. Trust represents both a cause and an effect in team success. A trusting environment encourages cooperation and shared effort. Cooperation and shared effort build trust for the future. Other contextual variables that contribute to success include adequate resources, quality leadership, and the organizational reward system.

Resources are often necessary to assist team activities. Members who believe they have access to needed funds and technological support are more likely to buy in and support the team (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000).

Quality leadership occurs in two ways. The �irst, and more apparent, is found in the efforts of a leader dedicated to making sure the group functions smoothly. Effective leaders in this vein set challenging expectations and operate in a positive fashion (George & Bettenhausen, 1990). The second takes place when the group leads itself by setting schedules, resolving con�licts, making decisions, and coordinating activities, much in the manner of self-managed teams.

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 14/27

For an individualist culture like the one present in the United States, teamwork, in many cases, must be actively promoted.

OgnjenO/iStock/Thinkstock

The organizational reward system consists of the performance evaluation program and the delivery of rewards. Group-based incentives, such as bonuses for completing tasks, contribute to more effective teams. When rewards for performance do not exist, the potential for team dissent and demise rises.

Process Variables The �inal component in a successful team effort involves the group's process, or the manner in which the team operates. Four elements combine to ensure a more ef�icient operational process. Teams with a common purpose among members, con�idence, speci�ic goals, and managed con�lict are more likely to experience positive outcomes. A common purpose evolves from factors such as group cohesiveness and well-developed norms. Team con�idence, or team ef�icacy, results from successful endeavors. A team can build on previous victories much in the same way as a sports team builds momentum during a game and during a season. Speci�ic goals clarify member roles. Dif�icult goals are associated with higher levels of effort and performance.

Managing con�lict necessitates careful managerial action. On one hand, con�lict is inevitable and can reduce problems such as overly cohesive groups and groupthink. On the other, too much con�lict can become a major distraction. Con�lict management and resolution receives signi�icant attention in Chapter 7.

Teams are most likely to be effective when all four features combine to create the best environment. A problem in any one of the four can disrupt group functioning. Managers should see the big picture when seeking to generate team effectiveness.

Being a Team Player

What will be your role in the workplace? Will you be the staunch individualist who goes his or her own way? Or will coworkers and top management complement your ability to get things done in teams and groups? A case can be made that a more enriching and successful career awaits quality team players.

Opinions vary regarding the nature of an effective team player. Lists of effective member characteristics typically range from 10 to 17 items. Some of the more common terms used to describe quality team members include the following:

adaptable collaborative committed communicative competent dependable enthusiastic intentional mission conscious prepared relational self-improving sel�less solution oriented tenacious

Team players exhibit quality listening skills, are cooperative rather than competitive, remain optimistic and happy, are adaptable to change, and are good negotiators. Further, a successful team member is someone who has excellent technical and professional competence, good interpersonal skills, and a sharing, giving tendency; respects authority; cares for the customer; is a self-reliant, happy person who welcomes feedback; has a �inger on the pulse of the team; is dependable; and demonstrates integrity, honesty, and trust.

Numerous ideas about the nature of an effective team player exist. This provides each person with a series of options regarding ways to engage in a group and become an effective member.

Turning Individuals into Team Players

When studying dimensions of national culture, one concept that receives substantial attention is the degree of individualism versus collectivism present. An individualistic culture exists when most people in a region are self-oriented more than oriented toward any group, team, or organization. Collectivist cultures represent the opposite tendency. The United States and other Western cultures tend to exhibit individualistic tendencies. Consequently, building and facilitating teamwork will be more challenging there than in other societies. The likelihood that employees will be team players can be increased through three managerial activities: recruiting and selection, coaching, and reward systems.

When recruiting, selection criteria make it possible to encourage applications by individuals interested in collaboration. During interviews, managers can discover those who have participated in team efforts as part of their education. For example, applicants with connections to sports teams, fraternities or sororities, and interest clubs such as Enactus have already demonstrated the willingness to engage in a larger group.

Coaching involves managers and leaders providing positive examples. Several consulting companies offer teamwork building programs designed to help employees become better team members. Part of this effort will be to reorient the individual to collective goals and a common effort designed to reach those goals.

Reward systems can be altered or modi�ied to incorporate performance objectives related to cooperation and collaboration, which will then reward individuals who improve or exhibit these characteristics. Then, the system can be changed to add group rewards and bonuses for

team performance. Hallmark Cards, Inc., and a former subsidiary of Blue Cross, Trigon, have successfully adapted reward systems to include team incentives (including �inancial incentives) in a manner that provides a model for other companies (Geber, 1995). Tony Hsieh, founder of Zappos, describes his company's success using reward systems in his book Delivering Happiness (2013).

In summary, teams become distinct from groups when synergies emerge from greater interdependence and shared effort. Self-managed work teams, problem- solving teams, crossfunctional teams and virtual teams are commonly used by business organizations. Effective management of these and other teams can

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 15/27

become an integral part of organizational success.

SUBMITSUBMITSUBMIT

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 16/27

There are various decision-making models covering many potential circumstances. Some decisions require observance of established processes, while others require more extensive evaluation.

Connel_Design/iStock/Thinkstock

6.4 Decision-Making Models What is the most important managerial activity? Some of you might answer, "Providing leadership." Others may reply, "Motivating employees." Both are quality answers. A third option, however, would be the response, "Making decisions." In today's volatile work environment managers are constantly challenged to make decisions. Therefore, the study of decision making constitutes a key element in understanding how to effectively manage an organization.

Decisions are not usually made by one person, standing alone. Many times the individual seeks the counsel of various groups and team members, including sets of friends and allies within the organization or via more formal group and organizational processes.

At times, decisions do not require a great deal of consideration. A programmed decision will be made when the nature of the problem is well understood, the choices are clear, and the results can be predicted with high levels of con�idence. Reordering raw materials, renewing employment contracts, and following company procedures are examples of programmed decisions. A nonprogrammed decision occurs when the situation is unique and no previously established courses of action exist. Such decisions require more time and evaluation. In this section, decision-making models as well as methods used to determine nonprogrammed decisions are identi�ied.

A Rational Decision-Making Model

When organizational leaders seek to resolve a problem that has new, uncharted dimensions, the most traditional method is to follow the steps of a rational model. The approach allows for a reasoned thought process at every point. The rational decision- making model typically consists of six steps:

1. State the problem or opportunity. 2. Identify company limitations. 3. Generate alternatives. 4. Evaluate alternatives. 5. Choose a solution. 6. Develop a plan of implementation.

State the Problem or Opportunity It may be tempting to think that decision making is only about solving problems. In truth, organizational managers often use decision making to assess an opportunity. Table 6.5 lists some common problems and opportunities.

Table 6.5: Problems and opportunities Problems Opportunities

Lost market share Available new technology

Low pro�its/losses Economic upswing

Employee morale issues New social trend

Unethical activities Change in the marketplace

When identifying a problem or opportunity, two elements are important. First, make certain that the cause of the problem has been identi�ied and not just the symptoms of the problem. For example, lost market share could be due to an innovation by the competition or declining product quality by the �irm losing share. Employee morale issues include symptoms such as absenteeism, tardiness, turnover, and grievances. The cause could be a new supervisor who does not relate well to employees, the lack of pay raises combined with layoffs, or some other force. Effective decision-making results from careful investigation of the nature of the issue.

Second, when specifying a problem or opportunity, stating the issue in a positive fashion has value. For example, the statement, "Our sales are dropping," can be rephrased in a positive light: "We need to �ind a way to increase sales by 10% in units next quarter." In essence, the problem should be framed as the desired solution.

Identify Company Limitations Every company's situation contains unique elements. Around 2010, Facebook and Twitter experienced explosive growth in terms of usage and revenues. In the same year, many �irms struggled with low sales due to a sputtering economy. When seeking to solve a problem or to seize an opportunity, a prudent course of action involves identifying company limitations. The most common areas in which limitations in�luence decision making are time, money, skilled personnel, technology, and organizational inertia.

Time limits decision making in three ways. First, decisions must often be made quickly, giving managers and other leaders little time to develop and consider options. Second, when considering alternatives, the length of time each lasts should be part of the process. The decision to construct a new building or expand in some major way may require long-term �inancing, which limits company options to pursue other projects in the future. Third, the time from decision to implementation merits deliberation. A decision that has been made may take weeks, months, or even years to implement. Consequently, this aspect of the alternative should also be taken into account.

Money nearly always affects decision making. Firms simply cannot throw dollars at every issue. Skilled personnel become a limitation when competitors employ workers with superior talents or knowledge, placing other companies at a disadvantage. Technology limits decision making when competing �irms acquire more advanced technology. Also, at times companies know a technological breakthrough that would solve a problem is on the horizon, but is not yet available.

Organizational inertia, or systematic resistance to change, often prevents quality solutions from being chosen. Managers know that subordinates or top management can prevent the implementation of a quality idea. Typical forms of inertia including stalling implementation and continual disagreement with any

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 17/27

The best method for creative problem solving in a given situation can depend on the culture of the work group and the nature of the work.

Vadimguzhva/iStock/Thinkstock

potential change to be made, often result from organizational processes, procedures, and by-laws that make innovation more dif�icult. Such has been argued regarding General Motors prior to the company's recent change in top management (Colvin, 2016).

Generate Alternatives A key element in solving company problems is creativity. While the most obvious solutions can be the simplest and quickest to implement, companies often achieve greater success when they identify a creative solution. For example, retailers and other companies that quickly established a presence on Twitter in its early years enjoyed a major advantage in the marketplace with younger, technologically-savvy customers, because it was the best option for reaching those individuals. Firms that relied on traditional methods such as standard advertising programs were soon at a disadvantage in reaching that audience.

Techniques that can assist employees in generating creative alternatives include the following:

brainstorming nominal groups �inding the lowest common denominator seeking an outside perspective

The brainstorming technique involves a group of employees gathered to generate creative ideas. The group is given the problem and then asked to quickly come up with as many ideas as possible in a short time period about how to resolve the issue. In some cases, respondents simply shout out responses. For the session to succeed, four rules must be followed:

The more ideas, the better. Wilder, more of�beat ideas are best. Build upon the ideas of other participants. Do not pass judgment on others' ideas during the session.

Brainstorming remains popular in organizations and departments where creativity is a way of life. For instance, advertising departments, research and development departments, and entertainment companies all rely on brainstorming.

Nominal groups may be used when participants are more reserved. In the nominal group session, instead of shouting out ideas, members write them down. Then, potential solutions are offered in a round-robin fashion, with each person taking a turn. Potential alternatives are then discussed and voted upon by ranking them from best to worst.

Finding the lowest common denominator involves trying to think of the problem in the simplest of terms. Instead of trying to �ind a way to increase sales, for example, it may be easier to come up with methods to generate store traf�ic. The concept would be that if people visit the store, they will be more inclined to buy something.

Seeking an outside perspective means visiting with someone from another discipline or area. A marketer might ask an accountant's opinion. A production manager could visit with someone from human resources about a morale issue. The goal is to incorporate a new point of view into the analysis and come up with new and unusual ways to solve a problem.

Evaluate Alternatives With the identi�ied limitations and alternatives in mind, managers can proceed to the evaluation stage. Often, the pros and cons of each alternative may be listed for those involved to examine. Many decisions have been reached by discovering the alternative with the best advantage-to-disadvantage ratio. Four other factors enter into the evaluation stage: decision quality, decision acceptance, uncertainty and risk, and the potential for con�lict during deliberations.

The �irst factor, decision quality, represents the rational, analytical component of the process; it seeks maximization no matter what the impact is on employees and their concerns. The second, decision acceptance, will be based on people's feelings. A trade-off may exist between the quality of a decision and its degree of acceptance. As an example, adopting a new technology could create an advantage with regard to competition but could also lead to layoffs. Internal acceptance would logically be low for such an alternative.

The third factor in�luencing alternative evaluation is uncertainty and risk. Greater uncertainty means managers have less information and do not know with con�idence how the implementation of an alternative will turn out. If the uncertainty regarding the outcome of a decision is high, then the company is assuming more risk with the decision. Managers must know if they are operating in a risk-taking company or one that avoids risks.

The fourth factor in evaluating alternatives is the potential for con�lict during deliberations. Decision makers do not operate in a vacuum. Alternatives that will adversely affect other employees or departments will encounter resistance. Managers must be able and willing to sort out political motives when evaluating alternatives.

Choose a Solution Three items merit consideration when choosing a solution. First, managers should note that solutions will often be combinations of alternatives rather than a single option. Finding sets of ideas that work together should be the objective.

Second, any solution chosen should be compared to the "do nothing" option. In other words, the manager must make sure the alternative offers an advantage over taking no action at all. Medical doctors follow the maxim, "First, do no harm." There are times when it is simply best to let the patient heal without intervention. Sports executives follow the premise, "Sometimes the best trade is the one you don't make." In essence, when deciding to take a particular course of action, it is advisable to make sure that it offers signi�icant advantages over simply letting things take their natural course.

The third item to consider is that when an alternative has been chosen, managers should restate their reasoning. The purpose is to make sure the manager can defend the choice at some later point. Many executives maintain decision "logs" or journals that spell out why a course of action was chosen, should they be asked to explain their reasoning by others.

Develop a Plan of Implementation A successful plan requires more than a simple decision about which action to take. Managers must make sure the decision is logically and ef�iciently carried out. Implementing plans involves the use of "Ws" and "Hs," as follows:

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 18/27

The bounded rationality model takes into account the natural limitations of an individual, as well as circumstantial restraints.

Design Pics/Thinkstock

Who is in charge? When should each step of implementation take place (timing issues)? Where will the solution be implemented? How should we proceed (sequence of events)?

The "why" question was answered in the previous stage of the decision-making process, making the choice and stating the rationale.

Limitations to the Rational Decision-Making Model Although the rational model continues to be widely used, managers recognize the limitations that accompany this approach. Rational decision making can be affected by expectations, emotions, company politics, personal attitudes and values, and a mismatch of decision maker and decision.

The expectations of other people can in�luence decision makers. A subordinate, not wishing to frustrate a boss, supervisor, or top manager, may choose a less viable option because the individual knows it is the one the boss favors. The expectations of peers, or peer pressure, can disrupt effective decision making. Finally, the expectations of employees can cause many supervisors to make poor decisions. For instance, a supervisor who wishes to be considered a "good guy" may not terminate a popular employee, even when that person cannot effectively perform.

Two emotions in particular may affect rational decision making. Anger often leads to poor decisions, because when someone is overcome by a strong emotion, that person usually has dif�iculty thinking rationally and clearly. Managers should not make snap decisions when they are mad. Second, feelings of sadness or depression can in�luence decision makers. Depressed individuals often do not have the energy to commit themselves to decision making. Someone who is having a bad day is advised to postpone a decision until the individual's mood brightens.

Company politics occur when individuals or departments seek to in�luence decisions that favor their interests, rather than overall company interests. Politics affects funding decisions, task assignments, and promotion decisions in a wide number of companies. These factors are described in greater detail in Chapter 11.

Personal attitudes affect several organizational operations and decision making within companies. A misogynistic supervisor will likely not consider promoting a female, or even paying her at an equitable level when compared to her male counterparts. Following the terrorist attacks by members of ISIS and Al Qaeda in France and other countries in the past several years, employees with Islamic religious beliefs often faced discrimination in the workplace. Further, someone who has lost a treasured family member to an auto accident involving a drunk driver will likely have strong feelings about alcohol consumption, which may affect workplace decisions about consumption as part of work functions or even during one's lunch hour.

A mismatch between a decision maker and the type of decision to be made often takes place in the area of risk attitudes. For example, in some positions or projects, a person with a risktaking personality may not be the best person to make the decisions; in other areas, however, a risk taker may be the best choice. Many companies seek to employ risk managers to supervise company portfolios and holdings, taking appropriate levels of risk.

In summary, rational decision-making models remain prevalent methods for making organizational choices. The limits to rationality described in this section have led to other viewpoints about the nature of decision making.

Nonrational Decision-Making Models

Popular culture portrays managers in a less-than-positive light and assumes a contentious relationship between employees and managers, as depicted in cartoons such as Dilbert. In truth, many managers are dedicated to helping a company succeed while achieving personal goals. To do so, it would not make sense to resort to impulsive and irrational decision-making processes. Instead, nonrational models depict their decision-making process in a more realistic light by acknowledging the presence of rational-thinking processes in managerial decision making but noting how these instincts and methods are often assisted by other approaches. Two such nonrational models of decision making are the bounded rationality model and the garbage can model.

The Bounded Rationality Model The rational decision model has its roots in economic theory. In microeconomic theory, it is assumed that decision makers have access to perfect information, are perfectly rational, and follow one decision rule: maximization. Therefore, a business decision would be made to maximize pro�its. A personal decision would be made to maximize personal utility. Clearly the presence of complete information and perfect rationality are not often the case, even when employing the six-step rational decision-making model.

The bounded rationality model suggests that a set of limitations prevents most managers from making perfectly rational decisions. The bounded rationality model posits that managers do not have enough time, energy, money, or brainpower to consider every decision alternative; consequently, they try their best to make quality decisions within those limitations. The architect of the bounded rationality model, Herbert Simon (1957, 1977), does not argue that managers exhibit irrationality, but rather that there are limits to practicing perfect rationality.

In the model, managers employ heuristics, which are decision rules that help an individual quickly eliminate alternatives. When a manager says, "We can't afford to hire anyone new," a decision rule has been set. In this case, it allows the manager to understand that the �inancial impact associated with adding a new person eliminates that option from consideration. The manager can then emphasize other key elements of the problem and look for a solution.

One common decision rule is satis�icing, which suggests that when a manager identi�ies an "acceptable" solution, the manager takes it and quits looking. Satis�icing has been called the "That's good enough" rule. Any alternative that leads the manager to say, "That's good enough" will be chosen. In many hiring decisions, an absolutely ideal candidate may not emerge. The �irst individual that causes the human resource manager and supervisor to say, "he or she will do" has met the satis�icing criterion.

The bounded rationality model offers a practical and realistic view of the ways in which many decisions are made. Anyone who has purchased a house or car probably has engaged in the use of heuristics and satis�icing. The same holds true when managers choose from a list of potential job candidates, make budget decisions, or identify potential plans and courses of action.

The Garbage Can Model

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 19/27

A second nonrational model suggests that managers exhibit random patterns when making decisions. In essence, managers maintain pre-established sets of solutions for problems located in individual mental garbage cans. If a solution appears to match a problem, it will be chosen. Managers utilizing the garbage can approach have no clear immediate goals. Decision making is not structured (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972). Instead, problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities are brought together to make decisions in a disorganized fashion.

The garbage can model suggests that managers look for convenient answers to problems. The greater the number of problems to resolve, the less time available that can be allocated to each problem. Therefore, use of the garbage can model optimizes decision-making time. Often decisions are affected by political motives in the sense that an individual will resort to or choose the solution which will best serve immediate personal interests (Bower & Gilbert, 2007). The garbage can model provides explanations for the ways in which managers seek to make expedient decisions, especially in situations where time pressures and work overload are present.

Historians suggest a garbage can-type situation existed following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the subsequent creation of the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. government. Some congressional members believed that greater integration of the major agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA) would result from the creation of an overarching department and successfully argued for its creation. Later, in 2008, the U.S. bailout of the �inancial industry points to the search for an immediate solution to a massive problem, even as critics on one hand believed it was too expensive, while others, notably billionaire Warren Buffet, compared the solution to "half a Viagra," or an incomplete approach to restoring the economy. Both cases could be considered to be disorganized responses to a threatening situation.

SUBMITSUBMITSUBMIT

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 20/27

6.5 In�luences on Decision Making Managerial styles vary in many ways. Some leaders exhibit a more authoritarian and directive style whereas others are more participative or consultative. These differences become evident when managers are asked to make decisions. This section considers various decision-making styles as well as factors that in�luence decision makers, including those made in groups.

Decision-Making Styles

Two factors drive the methods by which individuals make decisions: tolerance for ambiguity and value orientation. Tolerance for ambiguity suggests the decision maker understand he or she will not have complete information and cannot know the outcomes of all proposed solutions. Value orientation relates to managerial preferences regarding tasks, technical concerns, people concerns, and social concerns. The combination of these two factors leads to four decision- making styles (Rowe & Mason, 1987). Table 6.6 outlines the basics of these styles.

Table 6.6: Decision-making styles Decision-making style Characteristics

Directive Low tolerance for ambiguity/ High task and technical concern values

Analytical High tolerance for ambiguity/ High task and technical concern values

Behavioral Low tolerance for ambiguity/ High people and social concern values

Conceptual High tolerance for ambiguity/ High people and social concern values

The directive style emphasizes logical, pragmatic, and systematic methods for making decisions. Managers who exhibit a directive style often have a low tolerance for ambiguity and are prone to making quick decisions. This often results in an autocratic leadership style, because such individuals do not seek out additional perspectives from others and instead look for quick solutions without consulting subordinates or peers.

The analytical style differs from the directive style in that those exhibiting such a style have a high tolerance for ambiguity. Consequently, analytical decision makers are more willing to wait to make decisions and seek to gather as much data as possible. The analytical style is most effective in new and uncertain situations in which long deliberations are useful. The analytical style tends to �it with consultative leadership, as the decision maker will seek information from others to help make decisions.

The behavioral style emphasizes social interactions with subordinates as part of the decisionmaking process. The low tolerance for ambiguity leads him or her to make relatively quick decisions after discussing the problem with others. The primary �law with this approach may be the tendency to compromise too much. Behavioral managers tend to employ a participative leadership style.

The conceptual style seeks out social input and uses intuition combined with reasoning to make decisions. Conceptual leaders tend to be more participative and democratic in style. Their high tolerance for ambiguity may lead conceptual decision makers to want to talk to as many others as possible before making a �inal decision. Conceptual decision makers also often focus on the long-term implications of decisions.

None of the four styles should be considered as superior to the others. Each �its with individual leaders and speci�ic company situations. Problems occur, however, when the style does not �it the decision. Many times, decision-making processes are assigned to teams, often with great success, as illustrated in the OB in Action story regarding workplace safety at Harley-Davidson.

OB in Action: Workplace Safety—A Team-Based Decision-Making Approach at Harley-Davidson

The strong reliance on teams to enhance effectiveness at Harley-Davidson has been in place for many years. More recently, the company has achieved acclaim for a proactive, team-based approach to achieving greater levels of safety and well-being for employees, including the 2014 Theodore Roosevelt Workers' Compensation and Disability Management Award (Ireland, 2014).

The company began with major investments in health, safety, and risk-management employees. These individuals developed a comprehensive program designed to reach the various factors related to work-related injuries and then assigned teams to oversee programs.

One such team resulted from the creation of a "hybrid workers' compensation claims model." It consists of individuals from Harley-Davidson and vendor partners, including health and physical therapy center staff, �ield nurse case managers, consultants, and brokers. The team regularly analyzes claims and �iles reports on any developments.

A second team comprises nurses, case managers, physicians, occupational/physical therapists, and athletic trainers. These individuals are part of full- service health and �itness center programs.

Company leaders also hired a dedicated workers' compensation adjuster for each operating region. This team of adjusters meets each year for an "Adjuster Summit" to align �indings. Their workloads are managed through caps in cases to which they are assigned.

The three top incident types (injuries) reported at each manufacturing location are subject to individual focus group analyses. Complex claims are subject to weekly case management reviews.

These team efforts are supported through more careful hiring procedures. Individuals must be able to safely perform tasks before being chosen. Harley- Davidson has also implemented return-to-work and stay-at-work policies including lifestyle assistance designed to augment healthy living practices,

The net result has been a dramatic decline in work-related injuries and claims. While the program itself has been costly, Harley-Davidson's corporate health services manager, Sue Gartner, �irmly believes the effort is worthwhile both in human terms and the potential impact on longterm bottom line results (Ireland, 2014).

Re�lection and Application Questions

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 21/27

Harley-Davidson is one of the world's most well-known motorcycle manufacturers.

Peter Widmann/age fotostock/SuperStock

1. Which of these teams would have the biggest impact on injury prevention, and which on helping those who have been hurt?

2. How would principles such as cooperation, interdependence, and dependence apply to decision making within individual teams and with sets of teams in the larger organization?

3. Would this approach have value in other organizations? Why or why not?

Group Decision Making

As noted at the beginning of this chapter and Section 6.4, managers make decisions in the context of group in�luences, including peer groups and more formal group settings. Further, numerous decisions are made by groups rather than individuals. The managerial imperative will be to identify times when a decision is best left to a single individual or when to include groups in the process. Normally the choice involves a comparison of the bene�its and problems associated with group decision making regarding the matter to be decided. Table 6.7 summarizes the key issues (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2005).

The factors that in�luence the choice of involving a group in the decision-making process include time, decision importance or scope, the long-term implications of the decision, the availability of information, and the importance of employee acceptance. Decisions that require quick action become less likely to involve a group. Decisions with greater degrees of importance and long-term implications will logically be presented to groups. When a manager has suf�icient information to make a quality decision, involving a group becomes less crucial. When employee acceptance represents a key factor, the most common approach will be to involve a group in the decision (Vroom & Jago, 1988).

Table 6.7: Bene�its and problems with group decision making Bene�its

Provides additional perspectives/expertise

Allows discussion and evaluation

Increases acceptance of and commitment to decisions

Can train employees in decision-making skills

Problems

More time-consuming than an individual decision

Conformity and compromise may prevail rather than decision quality

Potential to be out-shouted rather than out-reasoned

Potential for con�lict

Potential for political rather than rational decisions

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 22/27

SUBMITSUBMITSUBMIT

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 23/27

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary

A formal group is established by the organization and seeks to achieve company goals and objectives. Three common types of formal groups are work groups, committees, and project teams. Informal groups revolve around activities, shared sentiments, and interactions. Both types of groups contain four types of members: the leader, opinion leaders, members in good standing, and the gatekeeper.

Groups tend to go through the stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and, in some cases, adjourning. Norms in groups tend to revolve around effort/productivity, work behaviors, and social behaviors. As part of the group activities, members enact various roles, which are the parts people play in social settings. Expectations, norms, performance, evaluation, and sanctions continually de�ine and re�ine the role. Problems emerge when the actor experiences disconnect created by role con�licts involving the contradictory elements within the role or with other roles the person plays. Role ambiguity re�lects unclear direction and misunderstanding of the nature of the role. Role overload exists when the role player cannot complete all assigned tasks. Effective group leadership can reduce or eliminate these potential problems.

The goal of the group should be the primary determinant of its size. Three basic objectives associated with a group are producing an item/completing a project, solving problems, and collecting information/input. Effective group size tends to be approximately �ive to seven members. Group leaders should be aware of social loa�ing, in which a member does not give full effort or fails to completely engage in the group's work.

The degree of goal commitment, conformity, cooperation, and group control over members indicates the level of group cohesiveness. Groups lacking cohesion experience numerous problems related to coordination and control. Cohesive groups enjoy several bene�its, including a positive social atmosphere. Overly cohesive groups create problems for leaders, especially when groupthink dominates group deliberations and actions.

Group leaders should pay attention to roles and norms, making sure these serve group functioning. At times the leader faces an outlier, who should be kept from damaging the morale of group members and effective group functioning.

Teams become distinct from groups when synergies emerge from greater interdependence and shared effort. Characteristics of teams include sharing leadership responsibilities among members, shifting from individual to individual plus collective responsibility, evaluation of success that is based on team outcomes rather than individual outcomes, improved collective problem solving, and trust among members.

Quality teams result from a match between the composition of the team, the design of the work, contextual factors, and process variables. Numerous ideas about the nature of an effective team player exist, which provide each person with a series of options regarding ways to engage in a group and become an effective member. Three managerial activities that can help managers lead employees to greater degrees of team participation are found through recruiting and selection, coaching, and reward systems.

Decision making is an important managerial activity. A programmed decision is made when the nature of the problem is well understood, the choices are clear, and the results can be predicted with high levels of con�idence. A nonprogrammed decision occurs when the situation is unique and no previously established courses of action exist. Such decisions require more time and evaluation.

The rational decision-making model typically consists of six steps: state the problem or opportunity, identify company limitations, generate alternatives, evaluate alternatives, choose a solution, and develop a plan of implementation. Rational decision making can be affected by expectations, emotions, company politics, personal attitudes and values, and a mismatch of decision maker and decision.

Two nonrational models of decision-making are the bounded rationality model and the garbage can model. Bounded rationality posits that managers do not have enough time, energy, money, or brainpower to consider every decision alternative; consequently, managers will try their best to make quality decisions within those limitations, using heuristics. The garbage can model suggests managers maintain pre-established sets of solutions for problems located in individual garbage cans.

Two factors drive the methods by which individuals make decisions: tolerance for ambiguity and value orientation. Combinations of these elements lead to four decision-making styles: directive, analytical, behavioral, and conceptual. Managers can match the styles to the nature of the decision and organization in which the decision is made.

Regarding individual versus group decision making, the managerial imperative will be to identify times when a decision is best left to a single individual and when to include groups in the process. Managers should consider the bene�its and problems associated with group decision making when choosing how to proceed.

CASE STUDY: The Crew

Doug has just moved to Bentonville, Arkansas, after living in Wisconsin for several years. A divorce caused the move. His marriage began at the age of 20 and ended at age 24. He moved to Northern Arkansas to get a change of scenery and to look for better job prospects.

Doug was a technical school graduate. His father taught him a great deal about the construction industry and had acquainted him with a variety of tools and techniques. He was skilled at framing, �inish carpentry, and several other aspects of building and maintenance. He worked with bricks and mortar, but was most comfortable with a hammer and nails. His previous employer would describe him as "hard-working, reliable, and skilled."

Based on references from his previous employer, Doug obtained a position with the Main Street Construction Company. The operation consisted of three crews, each of which worked together year round. Each crew employed six workers, one designated as foreman and the others without titles. Pay levels varied by skills, years of service, and some adjustments for merit, based on performance evaluations of the foreman and the judgments of the owner, Mike Cope.

Doug joined the crew that had been together the longest. One of their members had been badly injured in a car accident and was expected to be gone for at least a year. The member stated his intention to rejoin the crew as soon as his health would allow. Doug �igured he was only a temporary replacement with this team and was uncertain about where he would be assigned next.

The �irst several weeks on the job were dif�icult. Others in the crew treated Doug as if he barely existed. No one spoke to him, except for perfunctory conversations. During lunch hours the rest of the crew would abandon the work site, leaving Doug to eat or rest alone.

Doug was used to this form of indoctrination. He had seen it happen on his last job. This time, however, it felt worse. By the third week he was highly frustrated. Members of the crew did nothing to make him look bad, but they also would not help him. He would often end up taking extra time to �inish a task because no one would help hold boards to be cut or hand him tools when he worked in the high places on ladders or scaffolding. He would have to climb down instead. Doug believed that if he said something or complained to the foreman or Mike his situation would worsen.

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 24/27

During the fourth week, Doug became aware that an opening in another crew was available. He talked with Mike about the spot in private, wondering if he might �it in better with another set of workers. Mike told him to stay with his crew and to "hang in there." Mike continued, "These guys are adjusting to losing Fred, and they're taking some of their frustration out on you. Any other guy I might put on that crew would have the same problem."

"Maybe," Doug replied," But maybe if they could use me as a scapegoat then the new guy would have it easier."

"Tell you what," Mike offered, "If it doesn't get any better in a month, I'll switch you with whoever I hire for the other crew."

"Deal," Doug responded. He �igured he could handle anything for a month. Knowing that there was a way out made it easier.

The next time Doug needed help he simply asked for it. The crew member seemed shocked by his request to help cut and �it a corner. The man assisted Doug, and the two seemed to enjoy a fairly pleasant conversation while they worked. Doug said he was sorry that Fred had been hurt so badly. The crew member noted the good job Doug had done in �inishing the corner piece.

The next break time, Doug was surprised to see two of the crew wander over for a visit. For the �irst time, they talked about each other's personal lives and interests. Doug took a chance on opening up to them, but also believed he had nothing to lose.

After a week passed, the group seemed to include Doug into more of the workday, and even invited him to a bar on Friday night. The next day, Fred, the injured crew member, came to the job site for a visit. The crew rushed to his pickup to visit. Doug stayed back and �inished a task. He then gradually moved toward the rest of the crew.

"Hi, I'm Doug," he said to Fred, offering his hand, "I'm �illing in until you get back."

The comment seemed to truly break the ice. Doug was soon invited on lunch breaks and was included on inside jokes and pranks. He discovered common interests in slow-pitch softball and bowling, and was invited to join both teams.

Doug �inished the year with the crew. The entire group received high performance marks in their annual evaluations. When Fred returned, the crew went to Mike and asked if Doug could remain as a seventh member of the team. Mike agreed, seeing a good thing had evolved. Not long after, the crew's foreman moved to another city. The crew petitioned Mike to make Doug the new foreman, even though he was the youngest member.

Case Questions

1. Explain the �ive factors that shaped roles when Doug �irst joined the crew and again after he had been accepted. 2. What group cohesiveness factors were present in this scenario? 3. What factors changed the crew from a group into a team? 4. Explain the interactions between formal and informal groups in this story.

Review Questions

Click on each question to see the answer.

De�ine formal and informal groups and name the four types of members in each. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

A formal group is established by the organization and seeks to achieve company goals and objectives. An informal group, or a friendship group, emerges without the endorsement of organizational leaders and does not have a designated structure or work toward organizational goals other than socialization and friendship. The four types of members are the leader, opinion leaders, members in good standing, and the gatekeeper.

Name the �ive stages of group development. (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

The stages include forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.

What �ive factors shape roles? (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

Five major factors shape the nature of a role: expectations, norms, performance, evaluation, and sanctions.

What is social loa�ing and how is it related to group size? (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

In some instances, extreme declines in individual effort result from the addition of new group members. Social loa�ing occurs when group members give less effort to a group than they would if working individually.

What factors affect group cohesiveness? (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

The factors include the size of the group, opportunities to interact, homogeneity or heterogeneity, group status, an outside threat, membership stability, and the effectiveness of the group leader.

What are four primary forms of teams? (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

Four of the most common are types of teams are self-managed work teams, problem-solving teams, cross-functional teams, and virtual teams.

What four elements combine to create effective teams? (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

Quality teams result from a match between the composition of the team, the design of the work, contextual factors, and process variables.

What three managerial activities can help managers lead employees to greater degrees of team participation? (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

The likelihood that employees will be team players can be increased through three managerial activities: recruiting and selection, coaching, and reward systems.

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 25/27

What are the six steps of the rational decision-making model? (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

The rational decision-making model consists of six steps: (1) state the problem or opportunity, (2) identify company limitations, (3) generate alternatives, (4) evaluate alternatives, (5) choose a solution, and (6) develop a plan of implementation.

What �ive factors limit the viability of rational decision-making models? (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

Rational decision making can be affected by �ive issues: expectations, emotions, company politics, personal attitudes and values, and a mismatch of decision maker and decision.

What two nonrational models explain decision making in organizations? (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

The two nonrational models of decision making are the bounded rationality model and the garbage can model.

What four decision-making styles are present in organizations? (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

The four styles are directive, analytical, behavior, and conceptual.

Analytical Exercises

1. In the �ield of marketing, the product life-cycle model explains how a product reaches the market (introduction), grows, reaches maturity or saturation, begins to decline, and dies. The same model has been applied to business types, such as drivein theatres and mom-and-pop grocery stores. Do these analogies bear any resemblance to the stages of group development described in this chapter? What are the primary similarities and differences?

2. The �ive main factors that shape roles are role expectations, norms, role performance, evaluation, and sanctions. Three problems associated with effective role performance are role con�lict, role ambiguity, and role overload. Relate these concepts to the following occupations:

police of�icer member of the clergy accountant in a major �irm assembly-line worker

3. Relate the concepts of social loa�ing and group outliers to potential effects on group cohesiveness. How might a manager use the factors that increase or decrease cohesion to reduce these two problems?

4. The four types of teams described in this chapter are self-managed, problem solving, crossfunctional, and virtual. Which should be used in the following circumstances? Defend your reasoning.

oil rig explosion and oil spill investigation market research regarding company advertising effectiveness in other countries investigation of a dramatic rise in employee turnover in one plant, but not in others in the company developing a social media presence for an insurance company

5. Compare the rational decision-making model with the bounded rationality and garbage can models when making the following decisions. Select the one you think would be best and explain your reasoning.

decision to downsize and use outsourcing instead choice of automobile company from which to purchase new �leet of company cars choice of state in which the company will build a new warehouse and delivery facility employee promotions

Key Terms

Click on each key term to see the de�inition.

cross-functional team (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

Employees from different areas in a company who are brought together for a speci�ic purpose.

formal group (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

A group established by the organization that seeks to achieve company goals and objectives.

group (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

Two or more people, interacting, with a common purpose or goal.

group cohesiveness (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

The degree of goal commitment, conformity, cooperation, and group control over members.

groupthink (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

What results when group pressures for conformity become so intense that the group avoids unusual, minority, or unpopular views.

heuristics (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 26/27

Decision rules that help an individual quickly eliminate alternatives in the bounded rationality model.

informal group (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

A group that emerges without the endorsement of organizational leaders and does not have a designated structure or work toward organizational goals, focusing instead on socialization and friendship.

nonprogrammed decision (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

A decision made when the situation is unique and no previously established courses of action exist.

organizational inertia (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

Systematic resistance to change.

problem-solving team (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

A group of members of an organization that examines speci�ic organizational problems or processes.

programmed decision (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

A decision that is made when the nature of the problem is well understood, the choices are clear, and the results can be predicted with high levels of con�idence.

role ambiguity (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

What results from lack of clarity about a role.

role con�lict (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

What occurs when an individual confronts differing role expectations.

role overload (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

What occurs when someone is asked to do too much within a role.

satis�icing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

A heuristic, or decision rule, under which a manager identi�ies an "acceptable" solution, takes it, and quits looking.

self-managed work team (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

A group of employees who are assigned managerial responsibilities combined with work tasks.

social loa�ing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

What occurs when group members give less effort than they would if working individually.

teams (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

Small sets of people that generate synergies through greater interdependence and shared effort, which in turn lead to agreed-upon goals.

virtual teams (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633.17.1/sections/cover/books/Baack.3633

Teams that employ the Internet and digital technologies to achieve common goals.

Flashcards

1/15/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Baack.3633.17.1?sections=ch06,sec6.1,sec6.2,sec6.3,sec6.4,sec6.5,ch06summary&content=all&clientToken=9b6… 27/27

Choose a Study ModeView this study set