Use of Groups and Teams in an Organization

misha42000

BibliU-Print-9781284183269.pdf

Home >Nursing homework help >Use of Groups and Teams in an Organization

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

▶ Benefits of Skilled Conflict Resolution and Negotiation

Managers need to understand and appreciate that negotiation is not a zero-sum game. Managers who demonstrate effective conflict-resolution skills are often seen as competent, effective leaders (Gross & Guerrero, 2000; Stamato, 2004). A study by Eckerd College’s Management Development Institute (2003) found a significant link between a person’s ability to resolve conflict effectively and their perceived effectiveness as a leader and suitability for promotion. The sample for the study consisted of 172 employees (90 male and 82 female) from five different types of organizations. Approximately one-half of the participants were middle-level managers or higher in their organization; all of them participated in a program focusing on workplace conflict. The study revealed a strong correlation between certain conflict-resolution behaviors and perceived effectiveness as a leader and promotion potential. Employees who were perceived as being good at creating solutions, expressing emotions, and reaching out were considered more effective. By contrast, destructive behaviors, such as winning at all costs, displaying anger, demeaning others, and retaliating, were found to be the worst behaviors in terms of career advancement and leadership. Avoidance behaviors were found to be particularly problematic for would-be negotiators because individuals who are uncomfortable with negotiating or who perceive themselves to be unskilled or ineffective in negotiating often avoid conflict and thus fail to manage differences

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

effectively. Of particular significance is the study’s finding that negotiation skills are an important aspect of leadership.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

▶ Conclusion In this chapter, we discussed the positive and negative outcomes of conflict and pointed out that conflicts originate from a variety of sources. We can predict with 100% certainty that managers will deal with conflict and negotiation in the course of their work. Conflict-handling behavior can be learned, and managers should adapt their behavior to the situation to be resolved. Collaborative behavior is strongly desired as a way to manage conflict and reflects positively on the individuals who use this approach.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Discussion Questions

1. Explain the definition of conflict. 2. Describe the four basic types of conflict. 3. Discuss the five levels of conflict. 4. Describe the five conflict-handling modes. 5. Describe the three major negotiation models.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

CASE STUDIES

Case Study 15-5 Health Care System Versus Insurance

UAB to No Longer Accept UnitedHealth Care After Negotiations Fail

At the end of the month, UnitedHealth care insurance will not be accepted at most UAB Health System entities after the two companies failed to reach a contract agreement.

The end of UAB entities accepting United is July 31, and approximately 25,000 policyholders will be affected.

“UnitedHealth care forced us in this position,” said UAB Health System CEO Will Ferniany. “We haven’t had these kinds of problems with any other provider but United.”

Entities like UAB Hospital, The Kirklin Clinic, all other UAB Medicine primary care, specialty care and urgent care clinics, UA Health Services Foundation, UAB Callahan Eye Hospital, Medical West and Baptist Health in Montgomery are some of the UAB providers who won’t be accepting the insurance plans after July 31. The change also includes all services provided by UAB doctors, regardless of where the service is provided.

The emergency departments at UAB hospitals will remain open to United customers, officials said,

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

and some United policyholders who have an open benefit plan may also be exempt from additional charges when the change goes into effect.

Last month, the UAB Health System sent out 40,000 letters to patients who went to a UAB entity in the past two years with United insurance to notify them they may soon have to pay out-of- pocket costs if no agreement is reached.

UAB currently accepts Medicare, Medicaid, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama and VIVA Health (an affiliate of the UAB Health System). The change won’t affect supplemental plans, arrangements with Medicare or PEEHIP policies.

“We recognize and appreciate that some of the services UAB Health System provides are unique and more costly. We reimburse them accordingly for these types of services,” a spokesperson from United said. “However, UAB Hospital charges significantly more than other hospitals even for common services and tests.”

The university said it is opposed to the tier two designation which would make some of United’s policyholders pay more to come to UAB, while United would pay less. In some cases, the extra out-of-pocket costs would be applied even if the patient had no choice but to come to UAB Hospital because of the severity of their illness or the services needed.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

“UAB is demanding that they be designated a Tier 1 provider despite the fact that they don’t meet the criteria because of their egregiously high costs,” a spokesperson from United said. “If we agreed to this demand, it would undercut employers’ ability to design competitive benefit plans that reward their employees for choosing quality, cost- effective care providers.” United said it would continue to pay the contracted rate no matter what UAB’s tier designation is.

In their negotiations, Ferniany said United believed UAB’s costs should mirror smaller, less comprehensive hospitals. These demands ignore the complexity of the services UAB offers, he said.

UAB is the only Trauma I center in Alabama recognized by the American College of Surgeons, which causes the system to treat some of the state’s most critical patients. The hospital also serves as a public safety net to other hospitals in the state that cannot provide the same level of care as UAB, Ferniany said. Its charity costs are more than $70 million a year.

“We are also opposed to a program that only looks at price and not quality of care,” Ferniany said. He added the tier system isn’t fair to UAB, because many patients must go to a UAB entity for various reasons related to their condition or illness. He asked if UAB is the only place someone can go, why should they have to pay more?

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

He also said United shouldn’t punish UAB for being a teaching hospital, but recognize that Alabama would have far fewer doctors without the residents who train there. Other insurance companies realize that, Ferniany said.

United is one of the most profitable insurance companies, according to data, and generates more cash profit than all other national publicly traded health plans in the country combined. The company had $9 billion in earnings in 2018— profits that come at the expense of its policyholders and health care providers, Ferniany said.

This is not the first time UAB could not reach an agreement with United. The two could not reach a deal in 2005, and United was not accepted at the university from 2006 to 2011.

Raheel Farough, vice president of UAB Health System Managed Care, and Ferniany called the lack of partnership a sad and unfortunate situation, but maintain that UAB will not accept something that puts profits ahead of patient care.

“The things they’re asking for… are just not things we can accept,” Ferniany said. “This is very, very worrisome to these people. This is not a good thing.”

Farough added that United’s policies can harm patients, as the company will only pay for what

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

they deem is medically necessary, regardless of what’s best for the individual.

United has not been able to renew contracts with hospitals across Alabama and the country, according to information from UAB. South Alabama Medical Center and University of Colorado Hospital/CU Medicine were two of those hospitals, citing reasons including “frequent difficulty in obtaining authorization for services needed by patients” that were often not paid for. The hospitals also mentioned United’s refusing to pay health care providers after initially approving care.

The two are still committed to discussions of an agreement. “I’m planning to be reasonable,” Ferniany said. “They’ve not provided us anything close to reasonable.”

United responded Friday: “Despite repeated efforts to reach a compromise, UAB has decided to put Alabama residents square in the middle of this dispute. This is unfortunate and completely avoidable. We hope UAB will reconsider so we can continue working toward a new agreement that will ensure our members have continued access to UAB at a more affordable cost.”

1. What level of conflict is represented in this case?

2. What type of negotiation style did UAB use in this case?

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

3. What type of negotiation style did UnitedHealthcare use in this case?

4. Who are the winners and losers in this conflict?

Reproduced from Auglair, H. (2019). UAB to no longer accept

UnitedHealth care after negotiations fail. Al.com. Available

from https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/07/uab-to-

no-longer-accept-united-healthcare-after-negotiations-fail.html

Case Study 15-6 Musical Operating Rooms Dr. John Wilkins sat staring at the phone message in front of him. Dr. Peter Mikelson, chief of orthopedics, had called again wanting to discuss the current system used to schedule operating room times. As chief of medicine, technically, Dr. Wilkins had the power to dictate who would use the operating resources and when. Up to now he had been reluctant to use that power, relying instead on scheduling administrators to handle the schedule for operating room use. Perhaps the time had come to review that system and implement changes if necessary.

Mercy Hospital, a not-for-profit hospital located in the Northeast, employed 1000 doctors in 30 different departments. The facility had an outstanding reputation as a teaching hospital. About 40% of its doctors were full-time faculty, while the remaining 60% were volunteer staff (those doctors who, while not employees of the hospital, worked with residents and had access to hospital resources). The hospital currently had 25

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

operating rooms located throughout the hospital. Operating rooms were not assigned to any particular department, but doctors tried to use the rooms closest in proximity to their department wing. In some more extreme cases, it was simply understood that the operating rooms in certain wings were to be used only by certain departments.

Dr. Wilkins decided to have some informal discussions with different department chairs to gauge how dire the situation really was. His first stop was with Dr. Steve Daly, chief of urology. “You know, John,” Dr. Daly explained, “I understand urology is not a high-profile glamour specialty, but I am having a very difficult time attracting both volunteer staff and the best residents because of the trouble I have scheduling procedures. We have 20 doctors in three different departments sharing four operating rooms. I know to you this may sound like an inability on my part to plan, but let me put this in terms that may mean something to you. The operating room is where we make our money. If my doctors and I can’t easily schedule time in the OR, we can’t continue to build the department. I have already seen a decline in the number of referrals from primary care physicians. If this keeps up, this hospital will have a hard time maintaining this specialty at a competitive level.”

Next on Dr. Wilkins’s list was Dr. Jack Palmer, chief of neurosurgery. Jack Palmer was a bit of a legend in the region. This was due to a

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

combination of the high-profile nature of his specialty, his long tenure at the hospital, and his impressive client list, which included many of the people who sat on Mercy Hospital’s board of directors as well as their families and friends. As John walked through the department, he noticed that all three of the ORs in the Neurosurgery wing were not in use. When he mentioned this to the department secretary, she replied that this was always the case on Friday mornings. For as long as she could remember, Neurosurgery held a weekly teaching conference from 7:00 to 12:00 every Friday. The secretary then informed John that Jack could not free up any time to speak with him, but she did relay the message that all was fine in Neurosurgery as far as OR time.

Dr. Wilkins next spent some time with Dr. Sheehan, chief of ophthalmology. After reviewing the OR schedule for the next month, Dr. Wilkins was astounded at the number of procedures Dr. Sheehan and members of her department were scheduled to perform. Dr. Sheehan explained, “Well, John, I’ve actually put a little cushion in there to make sure I have the time I need. At the beginning of the month I sign up those surgeries I am sure we will perform as well as some ‘phantom’ patients. That way, if surgery runs over because I’m teaching the procedure to a resident, or if a patient shows up in a condition under which I cannot operate, I can easily reschedule them. Patients get quickly rescheduled, doctors’ office

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

hours aren’t disrupted, and everyone is happy. The name of the game is customer service. Peter [Dr. Mikelson] is new and will learn the system like everyone else did. I’m feeling particularly charitable today. Send Peter my way and we’ll see if we can’t negotiate for some of my scheduled time.”

Dr. Wilkins spoke with Dr. Mikelson last. Dr. Mikelson said, “John, I know I’m the new kid on the block, but this system is simply unacceptable. Six months ago when I took this position, you and the board made it very clear to me the importance of building the practice. I’ve done as much as I can, but my capacity analysis shows that if my growth continues, I’ll need four operating rooms instead of the one I am currently allocated. The bottom line is the bottom line, and you and I both know the money Orthopedics brings into the hospital. If I have to beg and plead with Susan Sheehan every time an unexpected change in my schedule pops up or rely on the grapevine to figure out when the OR is available, I can’t keep my patients happy. The game has changed, John. Unhappy patients simply go elsewhere for surgery.”

Dr. Wilkins knew Dr. Mikelson was right. How would he fix the situation in a way that made everyone happy, including patients, doctors, administrators, and the board of directors? What was the proper criteria to use: longevity, political clout, fiscal impact? How was he going to allow

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

for emergency surgeries? How much control did he really want to take away from the physicians in scheduling their procedures?

Discussion Questions

1. What is this conflict about? 2. Why is there a conflict over these issues? 3. How are each of the doctors doing now at

managing the conflict? What should they have done? Would you do what they did? Why or why not?

4. Imagine that you are Dr. Wilkins, who has been asked to resolve this dispute. What source of leverage do you have? What options are possible? What impact would each option have? What are your overall goals?

Reproduced from Friedman, R. (2002). Musical operating

rooms: Mini-cases of health care disputes. International Journal

of Conflict Management, 13(4), 421–422. © Emerald Group

Case Study 15-7 What Went Wrong? Tim Hardwood, CEO of Community Health System, hung up the phone with a heavy sigh. He had just received the news from Mary Martin, vice president of human resources, that negotiations had stalled between the health system and the service employees’ union. Mary had told him, “As of now, the 2,000 service employees at our three hospitals are without a contract and threatening to strike. But don’t worry, Tim. I told the union

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

negotiators that the health system is prepared to handle a strike.”

“A strike!” Tim thought. “The media will have a field day with this! What went wrong?”

Jim Brentward, one of the union negotiators, sat across the table from Mary Martin. Jim told Mary that his members understood that Community Health System was having financial difficulties because of the current state of the industry with decreasing reimbursements and increasing regulations, but the union members were not pleased with the organization’s proposed offer for salary increases and benefits package over the next 4 years. Jim said, “Unless the health system signs a contract by 5:00 �.�. Friday with acceptable salary and benefit increases, members of the union are threatening to strike.” He continued, “The union plans to hold an informational picket on Thursday, and although the union doesn’t want to strike, it’s a strong possibility. After the informational picket, we will hold a strike vote and see what our members have to say about the situation.”

Mary was shocked by Jim’s comments. She simply could not believe that Community Health’s service employees would threaten to strike! Because of her position as vice president of human resources, Mary knew that the service employees represented by Jim’s union were at the bottom end of the health care system’s pay scale.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

These employees included patient transporters, housekeeping, and cafeteria workers. Mary also knew that the union benefits paid to members during a strike equaled only 50% of the employee’s weekly salary. Mary felt confident that because they had too much to lose financially, the employees would never vote to strike. In addition, she knew that Community Health System was considering outsourcing its dietary departments to Thomson Health care Food Services. If the employees did strike, although Mary considered that very unlikely, dietary services would continue without interruption. Knowing this inside information, Mary decided that she wasn’t going to let Jim and the other union negotiators bully her. Mary told Jim that the health care system would not give in to the union’s demands and was prepared for a strike.

Explain to Tim Hardwood what went wrong. If you were hired as the mediator, how would you go about resolving the situation to achieve a win/win agreement?

Case Study 15-8 Healthy Conflict Resolution “Cindy, please reschedule my afternoon clinic; I am going to be out for the rest of the day,” says Dr. Jones, a senior physician in a hospital-owned multispecialty group.

“But, Dr. Jones,” Cindy says, while whipping off her telephone headset and turning away from the open patient registration window, “you are double

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

booked for most of the afternoon because you canceled your clinic twice this month already. Many of these patients have been waiting more than three months to see you!”

Jones glances furtively at the waiting room, and already half turned and heading toward the clinic exit, says, “I’m sure you will be able to smooth things over. Just tell them that I got called to an emergency.”

Cindy has a suspicion that, because the weather is nice, Jones is taking off with a couple of colleagues to go sailing or play a round of golf. After all, he always sports a darn tan, comes to clinic late, and often leaves early. Cindy does not relish having to call and reschedule these patients, some of whom have already been rescheduled at least once in the past couple of months.

Cindy decides enough is enough. She calls her manager and requests a meeting as soon as possible. Her manager can sense that Cindy is upset and offers to have someone cover for Cindy so that they can talk privately.

Cindy tells the manager about the situation with Jones that happens “all the time,” and how she is “sick of it,” and will not “work another day under these conditions.” After calming Cindy down, the manager promises to bring the matter up with the chief of the department.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

To make a long story shorter, suffice it to say that this conflict continues to mushroom to involve several more individuals (the chief medical officer, the executive director of the clinic, the director of human resources, and the union representative) before Jones is ever made aware that Cindy has filed a formal complaint about him. When he is finally confronted, in a meeting with the chief medical officer and the director of human resources, he is caught completely off guard.

After all, the incident happened several weeks ago, and Cindy did not mention anything to him about it. They have continued to work together, in his opinion, as if nothing were wrong. He is also surprised to find out that Cindy has been keeping a tally of the number of times that he has canceled his clinic, left early, or started clinic late.

Jones goes from astonishment to red-faced anger in a few minutes. It is clear to all that the relationship between Cindy and the doctor is irreparable. Jones is labeled as a disruptive physician. Cindy is not welcome in any department because the other physicians are fearful of being targeted. Cindy eventually resigns, and Jones feels betrayed and unappreciated by his staff and his employer.

If you were the manager in this case, how would you have handled the situation?

Reproduced from Pierce, K. P. (2009, January/February). Healthy

conflict resolution. Physician Executive, 35(1), 60–61.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Case Study 15-9 Conflict-Handling Styles For each of the five scenarios that follow determine the most appropriate conflict-handling style(s).

Scenario One

A radiologist on the staff of a large community hospital was stopped after a staff meeting by a colleague in internal medicine. On Monday of the previous week, the internist referred an elderly man with chronic, productive cough for chest X- ray, with a clinical diagnosis of bronchitis. On Thursday morning, the internist received the radiologist’s written X-ray report with a diagnosis of “probable bronchogenic carcinoma.” The internist expressed his dismay that the radiologist had not called him much earlier with a verbal report. Visibly upset, the internist raised his voice, but did not use abusive language.

How should the radiologist handle this conflict with the internist?

Scenario Two

The Family and Community Medicine Division of a large-staff model HMO serves a population that is ethnically diverse. The senior management team of the HMO, spurred by repeated complaints from representatives of one racial group, has encouraged the division, all of whose physicians are White, to diversify. Several Black and Hispanic

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

physicians with strong credentials apply for the open positions, but none are hired. Weeks later, a young female family physician learns from several colleagues that the division director has identified her as racist and the obstructionist to recruiting. The comments attributed to her are not only false but are also typical of discriminatory statements that she has heard the division chief utter. The rumors about her “behavior” have circulated widely in the division.

How should the young female family physician handle this conflict with the division chief?

Scenario Three

A manager who reports to the vice president for clinical affairs (VPCA) of a tertiary-care hospital hired a young woman to supervise development of a large community outreach program. During the first four months of her employment, several behavioral problems came to the VPCA’s attention: (1) complaints from community physicians that the coordinator criticizes other physicians in public; (2) concerns from two community leaders that the coordinator is not truthful; and (3) complaints about written reports about the project that label and blame others, sometimes in language that is disrespectful. The VPCA spoke several times to the manager about these problems. The manager reported other dissatisfactions with the coordinator’s performance, but he showed no sign of dealing

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

with the behavior. Two more complaints come in, one from an influential community leader.

How should the VPCA handle this conflict with the manager?

Scenario Four

The medical school in an academic health center recently implemented a problem-based curriculum, dramatically reducing the number of lectures given and substituting small-group learning that focuses on actual patient cases. Both clinical and basic science faculty are feeling stretched in their new roles. In the past, dental students took the basic course in microanatomy with medical students. The core lectures are still given, but at different times that do not match with the dental-curriculum schedule. The anatomists insist that they don’t have time to teach another course specifically for dental students. The dean has informed the chair of the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology that some educational revenues will be redirected to the dental school if the faculty do not meet this need.

How should the dean handle this conflict with the chair of the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology?

Scenario Five

The partners in a medical group practice are informed by the clinic manager that one physician

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

member of the group has been repeatedly upcoding procedures for a specific diagnosis. This issue first came to light 6 months ago. At that time the partners met with him, clarified the Medicare guidelines, and outlined the threat to the practice for noncompliance. He argued with their view, but ultimately agreed to code appropriately. There were no infractions for several months, but now he has submitted several erroneous codes. One member of the office staff has asked whether Medicare would consider this behavior “fraudulent.”

How should the partners handle the situation with the other physician partner?

Aschenbrener-Siders, C. A. (1999). Managing low-to-mid intensity

conflict in the health care setting. Physician Executive, 25(5), 44–50.

Reprinted with permission.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

References Auglair, H. (2019). UAB to no longer accept UnitedHealthcare

after negotiations fail. Al.com. Available from https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/07/uab-to-no- longer-accept-united-healthcare-after-negotiations- fail.html

Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1990). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Plenum Books.

Baron, R. A., Fortin, S. P., Frei, R. L., Hauver, L. A., & Shack, M. L. (1990). Reducing organizational conflict: The role of socially induced positive affective. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 133–152.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1984a). Solving costly organizational conflicts. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1984b). The managerial grid III (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Brehm, J., & Cohen, A. (1962). Explorations in cognitive dissonance. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Brett, J. M., & Shapiro, D. L. (1998). Breaking bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 410–424.

Cosier, R. A., & Dalton, D. R. (1990). Positive effects of conflict: A field assessment. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 81–92.

Dana, D. (2000). Conflict resolution: Mediation tools for everyday worklife. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Dewine, S., Nicotera, A. M., & Perry, D. (1991). Argumentativeness and aggressiveness: The flip side of gentle persuasion. Management Communication Journal, 4, 386–411.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Filley, A. C. (1975). Interpersonal conflict resolution. Chicago, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating without giving in (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Follett, M. P. (1940). Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follet (pp. 30–49). New York, NY: Harper (original work published in 1926).

Follett, M. P. (1942). Creative experience. New York, NY: Longmans, Green and Co.

Forte, P. S. (1997). The high cost of conflict. Nursing Economics, 15, 119–123.

Friedman, R. (2002). Musical operating rooms: Mini-cases of health care disputes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(4), 419–420.

Gardner, D. L. (1992). Conflict and retention of new graduate nurses. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 14, 76–85.

Gross, M. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An application of the competence model to Rahim’s organizational conflict styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(3), 200–226.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 36, 16–78.

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001, April). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238– 251.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Johnson, M. (1994). Conflict and nursing professionalization. In J. M. McCloskey & H. K. Grace (Eds.), Current issues in nursing (4th ed., pp. 643–649). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

Kabanoff, B. (1991). Equity, equality, power, and conflict. Academy of Management Review, 16, 416–441.

Kolb, D. M., & Bartunek, J. M. (1992). Hidden conflict in organizations: Uncovering behind-the-scenes disputes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kottler, J. (1996). Beyond blame: A new way of resolving conflicts in relationship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lee, C. (1990). Relative status of employees and styles of handling interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 327–340.

Lewicki, R., Weiss, S., & Lewin, D. (1992). Models of conflict, negotiation and third party intervention: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 209–252.

Locke, E. A., Smith, K. G., Erez, M., Chah, D. O., & Schaffer, A. (1994). The effects of intra-individual goal conflict on performance. Journal of Management, 20, 67–92.

Longest, B. B., & Brooks, D. H. (1998). Managerial competence at senior levels of integrated delivery systems. Journal of Healthcare Management, 43(2), 115–135.

Management Development Institute, Eckerd College. (2003). Leadership effectiveness study—Conflict and your career. Available from http://www.conflictdynamics.org/

March, S., & Simon, H. (1993). Organizations (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.

McElhaney, R. (1996). Conflict management in nursing administration. Nursing Management, 24, 65–66.

Nulty, P. (1993, February). Look at what unions want now. Fortune, 127, 128–133.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Pondy, R. L. (1967). Organizational conflict. Concept and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 296–320.

Porter-O’Grady, T., & Epstein, D. G. (2003). When push comes to shove: Managers as mediators. Nursing Management, 34(10), 34–38.

Rahim, M. A. (1985). A strategy for managing conflict in complex organizations. Human Relations, 38, 81–89.

Rahim, M. A., Garrett, J. E., & Buntzman, G. F. (1992). Ethics of managing interpersonal conflict in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5/6), 423–432.

Robbins, S. (1990). Organization theory (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. R. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Schwarz, R. M. (1994). The skilled facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shelton, C. D., & Darling, J. R. (2004). From chaos to order: Exploring new frontiers in conflict management. Organization Development Journal, 22(3), 22–41.

Stamato, L. (2004, July/August). The new age of negotiation. Ivey Business Journal Online. Available from www.iveybusinessjournal.com/archives

Stevens, C. M. (1963). Strategy and collective bargaining negotiation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Tarantino, D. P. (2004). The role of the physician executive in negotiation. Physician Executive, 30(5), 71–73.

Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Thomas, K. W. (1992a). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 265–274.

Thomas, K. W. (1992b). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. Dunette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 651–717). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Tuxedo, NY: Xicom, Inc. (Currently available through Consulting Psychologist’s Press.)

Thomas, K. W., & Schmidt, W. (1976). A survey of managerial interests with respect to conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 19(2), 315–318.

Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Watson, C., & Hoffman, L. R. (1996). Managers as negotiators. Leadership Quarterly, 7(1), 63–85.

Winder, R. (2003). Organizational dynamics and development. Futurics, 27(1/2), 5–30.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Other Suggested Readings Agor, W. H. (1984). Intuitive management: Integrating left and right

brain management skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ashford, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bates, B. (1975). Physician and nurse practitioners: Conflict and reward. Annals of Internal Medicine, 82, 702–706.

Brett, J. F., Northcraft, G. B., & Pinkley, R. L. (1999). Stairways to heaven: An interlocking self-regulation model of negotiation. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 435–451.

Davis, M. H., Capobianco, S., & Kraus, L. (2004). Measuring conflict-related behaviors: Reliability and validity evidence regarding the conflict dynamics profile. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(4), 707–731.

Elangovan, A. R. (2002). Managerial intervention in disputes: The role of cognitive biases and heuristics. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(7), 390–399.

Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S. T., Currall, S. C., & Tsai, J. C. (2002). What goes around comes around: The impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 32–55.

Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Kahneman, D. (1991). Judgment and decision making: A personal view. Psychological Science, 2(3), 142–154.

Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced- choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The mode instrument. Education and Psychological Development, 37, 309–325.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Kolb, D. M., & Putman, L. L. (1992, May). The multiple faces of conflict in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 311–324.

McWilliams, C. (2003). Healthcare decision making for dementia patients: Two problem cases. Internet Journal of Law, Healthcare and Ethics, 2(1), 12–19.

O’Connor, K. M., DeDreu, C. K., Schroth, H., Barry, B., Lituchy, T. R., & Bazerman, M. H. (2002). What we want to do versus what we think we should do: An empirical investigation of intrapersonal conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 403–418.

Shelton, C. D., & Darling, J. R. (2004). From chaos to order: Exploring new frontiers in conflict management. Organization Development Journal, 22(3), 22–41.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

PART V

Groups and Teams

People are social beings and have a need for affiliation or achieving a sense of belonging. Groups help to

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

satisfy this need. In Chapter 16, we examine group dynamics. “Group dynamics” is a term created by Kurt Lewin and used to describe the subfield of organizational behavior that attempts to understand the nature of groups, how they develop, and how they interact with the members of the groups, with other groups, and with their environments. In Chapter 17, we discuss the various types of groups and their related functions. Chapter 18 examines the use of teams in today’s complex health service organizations. Health care delivery “takes a village.” Few tasks can be performed from start to finish by one person. To complete a task requires resources from many individuals. Today, we see the widespread use of interdisciplinary teams to deliver effective and efficient health care.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

CHAPTER 16

Overview of Group Dynamics

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After completing this chapter, the student should understand:

The importance of group dynamics. The characteristics that define a group. The meaning of group interaction and methods to measure it. What motivates individuals to join and remain in groups. The various roles that members assume in groups and the importance of these roles. The meaning of group norms and how they are formed and sustained. The factors that contribute to or inhibit group cohesiveness. The impact of conformity on group performance. The impact of groupthink on group decision making.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

▶ Overview Human beings are social animals. Although we are born into and leave the world in a singular manner, we spend the majority of our time working, worshiping, learning, and playing in groups. Because we spend so much of our time in groups, there is great interest in understanding the inner workings of groups and their members. This research is referred to as the study of group dynamics, which is the attempt to understand the behavior in which people interact with, influence, and are influenced by others within groups.

Why is understanding group dynamics important to managers? It is important to the success of an organization. More and more organizations are moving toward a stronger emphasis on their employees working in groups and/or teams. A study by Blackburn and Rosen (1993) found that Federal Express had 4000 employee teams, Motorola used 2200 problem-solving teams, and at any given time 75% of Xerox’s employees serve on some type of task force or on advisory teams. When individuals transition from a staff role to a management role, their objective moves from being an individual performer to accomplishing work through others. It is increasingly rare for managers to work independently. For example, it is estimated that, on average, managers spend 50%–80% of their working day in one sort of group or another. In the health care setting, this estimate is not surprising. Health care managers, both clinical and administrative, participate in numerous work groups and teams on a daily basis, such as operating room teams, disease management teams,

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

patient safety committees, biomedical ethics committees, patient care teams, trauma teams, and emergency-preparedness and disaster-management teams. The movement toward accountable care organizations and patient-centered medical homes will increase the importance of teams in health care (Taplin, Foster, & Shortell, 2013). Additionally, as health care systems expand geographically and integrate vertically, more managers may find themselves working on virtual teams with people they may have never met face to face. Therefore, to be able to manage groups effectively, managers need to understand the variables involved relating to groups: formation and development, structure, and interrelationships with individuals, other groups, and organizations (Turner, 2000).

Our discussion of groups is divided into three sections. We define what a group is, discuss why individuals join groups, and then examine the interactions and behavior of members within a group. Although the terms “groups” and “teams” are often used interchangeably, there are differences. The concept of groups is broader than the concept of teams; therefore, not every group is a team. Katzenbach and Smith (1993) point out that teams are a special form of groups that have highly defined tasks and roles and demonstrate high group commitment. Because of these characteristics, we discuss the nature of teams separately.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

▶ What Is a Group? Social scientists usually define a group using four characteristics: (1) two or more people in social interaction, (2) a stable structure, (3) common interests or goals, and (4) the individuals perceiving themselves as a group. For example, two patients waiting to be treated in a hospital’s emergency department are not a group. This collection of two individuals is not a group because (1) there is no interaction between the two patients, nor are they attempting to influence each other; (2) patients in an emergency department constantly change, so a stable environment does not exist for future interactions; (3) although patients may have similar goals (e.g., restoring their healthy status, alleviation of pain), they are not working in a coordinated effort to achieve a common goal; and (4) these patients do not perceive themselves as a group, only as individuals occupying space in the same location at the same time. However, a group exists when volunteer members of the local chapter of the American Heart Association meet to plan the next fundraising event or when a multidisciplinary group of clinicians convenes for the purpose of developing evidence-based guidelines for patients admitted to the hospital with congestive heart failure. These groups represent collections of individuals with a common interest or goal in a stable environment (although members may join and leave the group at various times) wherein members interact with one another with the intent of influencing each other. One important factor relating to

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

group dynamics is understanding the interactions that occur between a group’s members.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

▶ Group Interaction Tubbs (2001) defines group interaction as the process by which members of a group exchange verbal and nonverbal messages in an attempt to influence one another. Therefore, interaction includes talking, listening, nonverbal gestures, texts, emails, and any other behavior to which people assign meaning. By observing these interactions, we can better understand the dynamics within a group. On a formal level, researchers may use a sociogram to record their observations of the interactions between members of a group (see Figure 16-1).

Figure 16-1 A Typical Sociogram

A sociogram is a pictorial method of mapping out and recording the contributions of members to a group interaction. In the example shown in Figure 16-1, the number of inputs is recorded as lines in the circles, each

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

of which represents a participant in the interaction. The arrows show the direction of the contributions made, and their thickness indicates the intensity of the traffic. An arrow pointing outward indicates a contribution made to the group as a whole rather than to an individual member (such as when an individual addresses the group in general).

However, a sociogram is limited to documenting the direction and intensity of communication; it does not include the content of what was communicated by the members in their attempt to influence one another. Other assessment tools, such as Bales’s Interaction Process Analysis, can provide insight into the content of the members’ communication (see Figure 16-2).

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Figure 16-2 Bales’s Interaction Process Analysis

Reproduced from Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A

method for the study of small groups. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

As Sprott (1958) noted, Bales’s Interaction Process Analysis includes 12 categories of interactions; these interactions are classified as relating to either emotion or task. The emotional responses are either positive (items 1–3) or negative (items 10–12). Task responses are either giving information (items 4–6) or asking for

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

information (items 7–9). The 12 categories are also grouped into pairs, as noted in Table 16-1. The interactions of these 12 categories greatly influence the roles assumed by members and group norms.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Table 16-1 Bales’s Interaction Process Analysis: Twelve Categories Paired

Items Description Example

1 and 12

Orientation How well do the group members cohere? Bales gives the example of a man who makes an offensive remark directed at another member (item 12); however, the laughter that follows is classified under item 2.

2 and 11

Emotional response only

Bales gives the example of a member sighing heavily and examining his fingernails.

3 and 10

Acceptance or rejection

This is where decisions are made. If positive, the member may show understanding, passive acceptance, and complies with the decision. If negative, the member may show disagreement, passive rejection, and without assistance.

4 and 9

Control Asking for suggestions such as “I think we should do this” or “How do you think we ought to tackle this?” By asking for suggestions, a member is getting the others to commit themselves. By committing themselves, members limit their future choices. This is a method of bringing other members under control, which may or may not lead to resentment.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

5 and 8

Opinion “Have we done that?” “We ought to make sure that we do this.” Any comments that involve summarizing the issues.

6 and 7

Orientation Setting out the problem and giving factual information.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reprinted with permission.

▶ Why Do People Join Groups? Individuals join groups for many reasons, and many of these reasons are explained by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Individuals join groups to satisfy their need for belonging (i.e., the need to have close contact with others and to be accepted by them) in addition to social and affection needs. Groups can satisfy an individual’s need for safety by reducing the sense of powerlessness and anxiety, which may be experienced in ambiguous or threatening situations. Members may join because group affiliation can be an important part of an individual’s self-esteem as well as social identity. People need to have a positive opinion of themselves, which they gain in part from acceptance by others in a group and evidence that other group members share their views and values. Furthermore, a group can help members to achieve stated goals that they could not have achieved alone as individuals.

Group membership can satisfy a number of needs for an individual, in addition to the member contributing to other members and the group achieving objectives. However, deciding whether to join a group or to continue membership in a group poses an approach–avoidance conflict. To resolve the conflict, an individual will perform a cost–benefit analysis of the relationship. Members will continue with their association as long as the rewards (satisfaction of needs) outweigh or are equal to the costs of being a member, such as required time to participate and financial commitment. This cost–benefit analysis is analogous to Adams Equity Theory of Motivation.

▶ Roles of Group Members Functional Role Theory, as introduced by Benne and Sheats (1948), identified the functional roles that they saw individual group members assuming in small group interactions. The three roles identified were task, maintenance, and individual (sometimes called “self- centered”) roles (see Exhibit 16-1). Task-oriented roles focus on goal accomplishment, maintenance roles focus on relationships, and individual roles focus on individual needs (such as needs for power or recognition), which may in the long run be harmful to the group’s overall success. Benne and Sheats’s task and maintenance roles are similar to the two communication patterns—task-oriented and socioemotional—that Bales (1950, 1953, 1970, 1999) identified in his research on group members’ interactions. Bales’s task role relates to a member’s activities that help the group accomplish its goals (e.g., concern for production), and the member’s socioemotional role is described as the activities that the member performs to promote harmonious relations within the group (e.g., concern for people) (refer to Figure 16-2).

Exhibit 16-1 Benne and Sheats’s Functional Roles of Group Members

Task Roles—Groups have members who play roles relating to job completion:

Initiator–contributor: Generates new ideas. Information-seeker: Asks for information about the task. Opinion-seeker: Asks for the input from the group about its values. Information-giver: Offers facts or generalization to the group. Opinion-giver: States their beliefs about a group issue. Elaborator: Explains ideas within the group and offers examples to clarify ideas. Coordinator: Shows the relationships between ideas. Orienter: Shifts the direction of the group’s discussion. Evaluator-critic: Measures group’s actions against some objective standard. Energizer: Stimulates the group to a higher level of activity. Procedural-technician: Performs logistical functions for the group. Recorder: Keeps a record of group actions.

Maintenance Roles—Groups also have members who play certain social roles:

Encourager: Praises the ideas of others.

Harmonizer: Mediates differences between group members. Compromiser: Moves group to another position that is favored by all group members. Gatekeeper/expediter: Keeps communication channels open. Standard setter: Suggests standards or criteria for the group to achieve. Group observer: Keeps records of group activities and uses this information to offer feedback to the group. Follower: Goes along with the group and accepts the group’s ideas.

Individual Roles—Member roles that can be counterproductive to the accomplishment of the group’s task or goals:

Aggressor: Attacks other group members, deflates the status of others, and shows other aggressive behavior. Blocker: Resists movement by the group. Recognition seeker: Calls attention to themselves. Self-confessor: Seeks to disclose non-group- related feelings or opinions. Dominator: Asserts control over the group by manipulating the other group members. Help seeker: Tries to gain the sympathy of the group.

Benne, K., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members.

Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–49. Reprinted with permission.

Members may assume different roles depending on the needs of the individual or the group. Bales found that some members engaged in more task and socioemotional activities than others and, as a result, were offered leadership status in the group. However, Bales also found that the person who engaged in the most task activities was not the same person who performed the most socioemotional activities. Therefore, two leaders emerged: the task leader, who was rated as having the best ideas, offering the most guidance, and being most influential in forming the group’s opinions, and the socioemotional leader, who was the best liked. The usual explanation for the emergence of the second leader is that a task leader’s sense of purpose gives rise to activities (e.g., unpopular orders, sharp criticism) that hurt group members’ feelings. The second leader emerged to smooth things over and restore harmony to the group.

Belbin (1981, 1993, 2004) studied the performance of a team and how performance was directly affected by the roles that members play. Belbin developed the Team Role Theory, which proposes that for optimal operation of a management team, nine (originally eight) personality-related team roles needed to be fulfilled. The roles are chairman/coordinator, shaper, plant, teamworker, completer/finisher, company worker/implementator, resource investigator, monitor/evaluator, and specialist. Belbin’s nine roles can be categorized as task/task-oriented, maintenance/socioemotional positive, or individual/socioemotional negative according to Benne

and Sheats’s Functional Role Theory and Bales’s Interaction Analysis (see Table 16-2). All groups need task leadership as well as attention to detail and a concern for people in order to be effective. Understanding the various members’ roles is important for comprehending the interactions that either push a group toward or hinder the group from meeting its goals, including member satisfaction with the interactions. The role(s) that a member assumes and the resulting interactions greatly influence the group’s norms.

Table 16-2 Comparison of Members’ Roles

▶ Group Norms Every group has a set of norms, which is an implied code of conduct about what is acceptable and unacceptable member behavior. Norms can be written or unwritten; positive, negative, or neutral; and applied to all members of the group or only to certain members. In addition, groups will apply “punishment” or sanctions to members whose behavior deviates from the group’s norms. Norms can dictate the performance level of groups (e.g., high- or low-productivity work groups), the appearance of group members (e.g., bankers wear dark suits), or the social arrangement within the group (the chair of the committee sits at the head of the conference table).

Most organizations have formal rules of conduct, which are delineated in their policies and procedures manuals. For example, a hospital would have written policies on clinical research protocols, infection-control procedures for handling blood and other body fluids, the proper attire to be worn in operating room suites, and processes to ensure that the correct patient (and correct body part) is operated on (see Exhibit 16-2).

Exhibit 16-2 Surgical Checklist

The implementation of a surgical checklist that guides the surgical team through a series of tasks and communications before, during, and after the surgery represents an example of written formal rules of conduct. Research by the World Health Organization found that implementing such a checklist reduced postoperative complications and death rates by over 30% (Haynes et al., 2009).

WHO Surgical Safety Checklist, Retrieved from

https://www.who.int/patientsafety/topics/safe-surgery/checklist/en/

However, in most instances, group norms (i.e., acceptable behavior of group members) are unwritten and learned by members through their interactions with others. For example, Crandall (1988) studied groups of cheerleaders, dancers, and female sorority members with high rates of eating disorders and noted that these groups adopted the behaviors of binging and purging as

normal methods of weight control. The most popular members of the group binged and purged at the rate established by the norms of the group, and those who did not binge and purge when they first joined the group were more likely to take up the practice the longer they were members of the group. This alignment of behavior within a group is part of an individual’s socialization process. This process of socialization explains how unwritten norms become the “standards” for the group, as members begin to internalize the group’s norms as their own behavior standards. As such, norms do not just maintain order within the group; they also maintain the group itself (Youngreen & Moore, 2008).

Since most group norms are unwritten, they are usually not easily identified until violated. When group norms are violated, members of the group will attempt to convince the “deviant” to conform to the group’s standards of behavior. If the use of persuasion is not successful, the group may punish the member by withdrawing any “special” status that the member may hold, or the group may psychologically reject (e.g., ignore) the member. The final consequence for a member who refuses to conform would be dismissal from the group. Through this process, members learn the range or boundaries of acceptable behavior within a group. For example, Feldman (1984) describes the norms about productivity that frequently develop among factory workers. A person produces 50 widgets and is praised by their coworkers; a person produces 60 widgets and is sharply teased by coworkers; a person produces 70 widgets and is ostracized by coworkers. If

the group norm is that producing 50 widgets allows for an acceptable pace of work, the group member who produces 70 widgets may either make the rest of the group look lazy or cause management to raise the target number of widgets to be produced, resulting in an uncomfortably fast pace of work. Not all behavior deviations will be enforced, only those violations that have some significant effect on the group meeting its goals (see Table 16-3). Norms are powerful forces not only din affecting the behavior of group members, but also in determining the degree of cohesiveness and conformity of the group.

Table 16-3 Why Norms Are Enforced

Four Conditions Under Which Group Norms Are Most Likely To Be Enforced Example

If norms facilitate group survival

Group members do not disclose certain project details so that their work cannot be replicated by another group.

If norms simplify or make predictable what behavior is expected of group members

Employees are expected to be present at the office during the same hours each day so that clients always know where to find team members.

If norms help the group to avoid embarrassing interpersonal problems

Members do not discuss politics at work so that members with strongly held beliefs do not create conflict or ostracize other members.

If norms express the central values of the group and clarify what is distinctive about the group’s identity

Long white coats are worn by physicians so that patients know which care provider is their doctor and to symbolize a high level of training and expertise.

“The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms,” by D. C. Feldman, 1984. The Academy of Management Review, 9, pp. 47–53.

▶ Cohesiveness The degree of cohesiveness (e.g., camaraderie) of a group is determined by various factors, which may include members’ dependence and physical location/proximity. The more significant factors tend to be (1) the size of the group, (2) experience of success by the group, (3) group status, and (4) outside threats to the group.

Size of the Group Researchers have determined that the size of the group has a direct impact on the cohesiveness of a group. When there are too many members, it becomes too difficult for members to interact. Luft (1984, p. 23) concluded that “cohesion tends to be weaker and morale tends to be lower in large groups than in comparable smaller ones.” What is the acceptable group size? Kameda, Stasson, David, Parks, and Zimmerman (1992) suggest that the optimum group size appears to be five members. Five-member groups are small enough for meaningful interaction yet large enough to generate an adequate number of ideas (Tubbs, 2001). Small groups may also avoid the problem of social loafing.

Social Loafing Diffusion of responsibility refers to the phenomenon by which an individual feels less responsible for a task when they are part of a group. For example, people are more likely to call for an ambulance when they see a car wreck if there are no other cars on the road. However, if the car wreck occurs in the middle of a busy highway with lots of other cars around, people are more likely to assume that somebody else in traffic will make the call. Perhaps you ignore the full trashcan, hoping that your roommate will take care of it. A specific consequence of diffusion of responsibility that occurs in working groups is called social loafing.

Social loafing refers to the decreased effort of individual members in a group when the size of the group increases (Tubbs, 2001). Ringelmann (1913) identified this social phenomenon when he noticed that as more and more people were added to a group pulling on a rope, the total force exerted by the group rose but the average force exerted by each group member declined. The reason is that some members’ performance became mediocre because they assumed that other members would pick up the slack. Karau and Williams (1993) found that social loafing occurs across work populations and tasks. However, the researchers noted that if the participants’ dominant culture emphasized collectivism versus individualism as described by Hofstede’s four dimensions of national culture (Hofstede, 1984), the degree of social loafing decreased.

Subsequent studies revealed that when an individual’s contribution is identified and the person is held directly accountable for and rewarded for their behavior, social loafing may be eliminated (Kerr, 1983; Kerr & Bruun, 1981; Shepperd, 1993; Szymanski & Harkins, 1987). Beyerlein, Freedman, McGee, and Moran (2003) stress that personal accountability by each group member for their role and responsibilities is required to achieve an effective collaborative team. When accountability is lacking, members will usually act in support of their own self-serving interests. For example, members will sometimes hold back if they believe that other members of their group are not expending equal efforts toward accomplishing the task.

Experience of Success Prior success of a group in reaching its goals has a direct impact on the degree of cohesiveness. No one wants to stay on a losing team. When a group fails to attain its goals, members display a lack of unity by infighting, finger pointing, and, finally, disassociation.

Group Status Cohesiveness is more prominent when admission into the group is more difficult to obtain because of various barriers or high criteria, such as education levels. This perception of status, whether real or not, creates a feeling of being in the “in-group” for the individuals who were able to overcome the barriers for admission into the group—for example, a physicians’ group.

Outside Threats to the Group The cohesiveness of a group will increase if its members perceive that an external force may prevent the group from reaching its goals. Members of the group will unite to display a unified front to the opposing force. In addition, cohesive groups will unite against nonconforming members who threaten the esprit de corps of the group. Therefore, cohesive groups exert pressure on members of the group to conform.

Managers should assist their subordinates’ development into cohesive work groups because research has shown that cohesive units demonstrate a higher level of productivity than less cohesive groups do. However, managers need to be aware that group norms may mediate the relationship between cohesiveness and performance. On the one hand, if norms support performance-related activities, then cohesiveness is likely to improve performance. On the other hand, if norms support limited output or engagement in irrelevant tasks, cohesiveness may undermine performance (Berkowitz, 1954).

In conclusion, group cohesiveness is a product of social identification. According to Hogg and Abrams (1990), the more positive a member feels about their group, the more motivated the person is to promote in-group solidarity, cooperation, and support. In turn, the more cohesive a group is, the more likely it is that its members will interact socially and influence one another (Turner, 1987). Because of these interactions, we find that more cohesive groups have a tendency to eventually pressure their members toward a higher degree of

conformity, and a high degree of conformity can lower the performance level of the group.

▶ Conformity Strong group norms and high degrees of group cohesiveness can hamper the performance of a group because of conformity pressures. Conformity involves the changing of an individual’s perceptions or behaviors to match the attitudes or behaviors of others. This “normative social influence” occurs when we conform to what we believe to be the norms of the group in order to be accepted by its members.

One of the earliest studies in the conformity area was Sherif’s (1936) experiment that involved the autokinetic effect. Sherif pointed a light in a dark space that, although stationary, appeared to move. Subjects were asked, both as individuals and as members of a group, to estimate the amount of movement they observed. When in groups, the subjects changed their original estimates to more closely fit the answers of the other members. This experiment demonstrated the individual’s urge to conform.

Asch (1952) also conducted conformity studies. In Asch’s experiments, eight people were seated around a table. Seven of them were actually the experimenters or confederates. However, the eighth person, the subject, was unaware of this situation. The group was shown two cards; each card contained different lengths of vertical lines (i.e., no two lines matched in length on either card). The participants were asked to say which of the lines matched the length of another. One after another, the participants announced their decisions. The confederates had been told to give an incorrect

response. The eighth subject sat in the next to last seat so that all but one of the other participants had given an obviously incorrect answer before the subject gave their answer. Even though the correct answer was obvious (i.e., no two lines matched in length on either card), Asch found that one-third of the subjects conformed to the majority, one-third never conformed, and the remaining one-third gave conforming responses at least once. This experiment was designed to create pressure on subjects to conform to others, which in fact they did.

Although Asch’s experiment has been criticized for being unrealistic (i.e., in the real world, individuals would be making decisions on subjects more complex and more important than the length of a line), it did confirm that “humans have the tendency to conform to the goals and ideas of a small group and tend to be unwilling to go against the group even if they know the group is wrong” (Asch, 1960).

Not all people conform. There is evidence that those who do not conform tend to have a healthy level of self- esteem and to have mature social relationships as well as being fairly flexible and open-minded in their thinking. For example, Crutchfield (1955) and Tuddenham (1958) found that there is a correlation between high intelligence and other personality traits and low conformity. Another important aspect of conformity is that it may lead to “groupthink.”

▶ Groupthink Strong conformity pressures reflect members’ attempts to maintain harmony within the group. However, conformity may hamper a group’s performance by decreasing innovation and increasing faulty decision making. Janis (1982) referred to this situation as “groupthink.” Groupthink refers to conditions under which efforts to maintain group harmony undermine critical thought and lead to poor decisions (Janis, 1982; Janis & Mann, 1977). Janis, as cited by Tubbs (2001, p. 236), identified eight symptoms of groupthink:

Type I: Overestimation of the group—its power and morality 1. An illusion of invulnerability, shared by most or all

of the members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks.

2. An unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness 1. Collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount

warnings or other information that might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions.

2. Stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purposes.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

1. Self-censorship of deviation from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member’s inclination to minimize to themselves the importance of their doubts and counterarguments.

2. A shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent).

3. Direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members.

4. The emergence of self-appointed mindguards— members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter its shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of its decisions.

Was groupthink the downfall of HealthSouth? (See Exhibit 16-3.) Many former senior managers of HealthSouth, a nationwide provider of rehabilitative services headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, were indicted and in some cases found guilty of fraudulently and systemically inflating the company’s earnings and assets by approximately $4 billion during the 1990s.

Exhibit 16-3 Five HealthSouth Officers Charged with Conspiracy to Commit Wire and Securities Fraud

Count 1 of the Information alleges that a conspiracy existed from in or about 1994 until the present between AYERS, EDWARDS, MORGAN, AND VALENTINE and with Owens, Smith, Harris, and others to devise a scheme to inflate artificially HealthSouth’s publicly reported earnings and the value of its assets, and to falsify reports of HealthSouth’s financial condition. It was part of the conspiracy that Owens, Smith, Harris, and others would provide the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) with monthly and quarterly preliminary reports showing HealthSouth’s true and actual financial results. After reviewing these reports, Owens, Smith, Harris, and others would direct that HealthSouth’s accounting staff find ways to ensure that HealthSouth’s “earnings per share” number met or exceeded Wall Street analyst expectations. After Owens, Smith, Harris, and others issued instructions as to the desired earnings per share number, HealthSouth’s accounting staff would meet to discuss ways to inflate artificially HealthSouth’s earnings to meet the CEO’s desired earnings numbers.

These meetings were known as “family” meetings, and attendees were known as the “family.” At the meetings, they would discuss ways by which members of the accounting staff would falsify

HealthSouth’s books to fill the “gap” or “hole” and meet the desired earnings. The fraudulent postings used to fill the “hole” were referred to as the “dirt.” Owens, Smith, Harris, and others would and did direct one or more of the defendants, also members of the accounting staff, to make false entries in HealthSouth’s books and records for the purpose of artificially inflating HealthSouth’s revenue and earnings. Owens, Smith, Harris, and others would direct one or more of the defendants to make corresponding false entries in HealthSouth’s books and records for the purpose of artificially inflating the value of its assets, including, but not limited to, false entries made to (a) Property, Plant and Equipment (“PP&E”) accounts; (b) cash accounts; (c) inventory accounts; and (d) intangible asset [goodwill]. When events required that financial records and reports related to units of HealthSouth were called for by auditors, purchasers, and others, Owens, Smith, Harris, and others would direct one or more of the defendants to generate records and reports that would black out the false entries. Owens, Smith, and one or more of the defendants would, for the purpose of deceiving auditors, manufacture false documents for the purpose of supporting false record entries. One or more of the defendants would and did change codes on accounts to deceive auditors.

Reproduced from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Press Release dated

April 3, 2003.

Managers must be careful because group members sometimes desire to maintain their close team relationships—or, in the HealthSouth case, “the family relationship”—at all costs. When group members operate in a groupthink mode, it may affect their decision making. For example, consider a health care provider who has proposed a new medical procedure for joint replacements. Some team members are initially resistant because of high training demands, even though the new procedure would establish best practices. To preserve harmony in the group, other staff members go along with the resisting members. In this case, the team has succumbed to group thinking instead of critical thinking.

Many researchers studied the culture of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) after the Challenger disaster and found evidence of this type of groupthink. Engineers did not voice their concerns and criticism because of the strong team spirit and camaraderie at NASA. In other words, it is when groups display a high degree of cohesiveness that it is especially important to be on guard against groupthink.

Suggested safeguards against groupthink include (1) soliciting outside expert opinions during the decision- making process, (2) appointing a devil’s advocate to challenge majority views, (3) hypothesizing alternative scenarios of a rival’s intention, and (4) reconsidering decisions after a waiting period. Many researchers have questioned the effectiveness of these safeguards. For example, Bennis (1976) argues that a devil’s advocate

will be ignored if the group perceives the member as only role-playing.

▶ Conclusion Many factors influence our behavior. Group dynamics is a complex subject that attempts to provide us with some understanding of how individuals interact with one another and how those interactions become visible in our resulting behavior. Burton and Dimbleby (1996) developed a model, using interpersonal communication as the foundation, to help us understand the complexity of group dynamics (see Figure 16-3).

Figure 16-3 The Interface of Me and Them

Reproduced from Burton, G., & Dimbleby, R. (1996). Between ourselves: An

introduction to interpersonal communications (2nd ed.). London: Edward

Arnold.

The figure is titled “The Interface of Me and Them.” Since group dynamics is the attempt to understand how people interact with and influence others within groups, the title is most appropriate. When examining the model, you will notice that the bottom half is concerned

with “me” and the top half represents “them.” The process begins with an individual’s needs or motivation, which triggers the “whole of self.” The triangle represents the various interactions we have with our groups that are filtered through our self-concept, which, taken together, form our personal roles. We then communicate our role and receive feedback from both ourselves (did I play the role correctly?) and others (did they confirm my behavior was correct?) to restart the process of redefining who we are as an individual (personal role). Although the model may appear somewhat complex, it only starts to explain the complexity of human behavior.