Jeff Bezos and Teamwork

CASE STUDY: MICROECONOMIC ANALYSIS: SUPPLY AND DEMAND 5

Crushed by the Herd

Answer quickly: If you were an employee of this car’s manufacturer and could have prevented the accident that killed two people and injured a third, would you?

No doubt you answered “yes” automatically, but if we took a few minutes to think about it, we might have to honestly answer “maybe.” When we are members of groups as powerful as those in General Motors (GM), it can be very difficult to predict our behavior. Our perceptions of right and wrong can become skewed, making even straightforward ethical decisions like this one confusing.

Courtland Kelley of GM (which made the Chevrolet Cobalt in the photo) learned firsthand the pressures groups can exert on an individual. As the leader of GM’s U.S. safety inspection program, he expected his workgroups to act upon the serious safety flaws he found in the vehicle. Instead, “Group after group and committee after committee within GM that reviewed the issue failed to take action or acted too slowly,” a later report noted. Kelley’s colleague, auditor William McAleer, agreed that management refused to acknowledge safety issues with vehicles. “Any time you had a problem, you ran into resistance,” he said. “Nobody owns [the] defect. And the plant can say, ‘It was working when it left here.’ And the supplier can say, ‘My part was good.’ It relieves everybody of responsibility.”

When Kelley pushed harder to have the Cobalt’s faulty ignition switch addressed, management actively discouraged his efforts. The group ordered him to stay quiet about defects and rename them as mere convenience issues. At one point, his direct supervisor forbade him to share data on serious defects with McAleer and threatened to transfer him to a lesser position on the outskirts of town, while the management group tried to stifle the information. Kelley said, “I heard them have many discussions about not wanting to notify the government, not putting voice mails out to dealers, because the government could get them” and learn of the defects.

When Kelley couldn’t be silenced, the group pressured him into toning down the wording in his reports and shuffled him into less responsible jobs. McAleer, who suffered similar circumstances until he was laid off in 2004, observed, “The system acts as if raising a safety issue internally were an act of corporate treason.” Kelley landed off the organization chart in a “special assignment job,” where he was told to “come up with charts, predict warranty for the vehicle, but not find every problem that GM might have.” McAleer said of Kelley, “He still has a job—he doesn’t have a career. He has no possibility of promotion.” Kelley was not fired likely only because he brought lawsuits against GM.

On the positive side, Kelley’s efforts have doubtlessly saved lives. After 13 deaths and 54 crashes, 2,084,000 Cobalts were recalled, as were almost 70,000 other vehicles with defects he found. From this standpoint, the battle he fought and his years in a “GM purgatory” job have been worth it. “I felt morally responsible to fix a problem that I found in a vehicle,” he said of his work on the Chevy Trailblazer. However, his heroic efforts have cost him many court battles, and he has developed chest pains, panic attacks, depression, and insomnia. “I clearly saw him age drastically,” his doctor, Van Alstine, said. “You just knew he was under a tremendous amount of stress. . . . It shook him to the core.”

Sources: G. Gutierrez and R. Gardella, “‘Willful Ignorance’ Ex-Auditor Blasts GM for Cutting Safety Program,” NBC News, July 9, 2014,  http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/gm-recall/willful-ignorance-ex-auditor-blasts-gm-cutting-safety-program-n152311 ; T. Higgins and N. Summers, “If Only They Had Listened,” Bloomberg Businessweek, June 2014, 48–53; and S. McEachern, “General Motors ‘Whistleblower’ Was Told to Back Off after Finding Safety Flaws,” GM Authority, June 19, 2014,  http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/06/general-​motors-whistleblower-was-told-to-back-off-after-finding-safety-flaws/ .

The story of Courtland Kelley’s attempts to counter the effects of group pressure provides us with a powerful example of the ways groups can (mis)behave. Even though Kelley resisted for all the right ethical reasons, sometimes countering group pressure can mean costly consequences for the individual, as he found.

Groups have their place—and their pitfalls. Some groups can exert a powerful positive influence, and others can be tragically negative. The objectives of this chapter and  Chapter 10  are to familiarize you with group and team concepts, provide you with a foundation for understanding how groups and teams work, and show you how to create effective working units. Let’s begin by defining a group.

Defining and Classifying Groups

1. 1 Distinguish between the different types of groups.

In organizational behavior, a  group  is two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives. Groups can be either formal or informal. A  formal group  is defined by the organization’s structure, with designated work assignments and established tasks. In formal groups, the behaviors team members should engage in are stipulated by and directed toward organizational goals. The six members of an airline flight crew are a formal group, for example. In contrast, an  informal group  is neither formally structured nor organizationally determined. Informal groups in the work environment meet the need for social contact. Three employees from different departments who regularly have lunch or coffee together are an informal group. These types of interactions among individuals, though informal, deeply affect their behavior and performance.

Social Identity

People often feel strongly about their groups partly because, as research indicates, shared experiences amplify our perception of events. 1  Also, according to research in Australia, sharing painful experiences, in particular, increases our felt bond and trust with others. 2  Why do people form groups, and why do they feel so strongly about them? Consider the celebrations that follow when a sports team wins a national championship. The winner’s supporters are elated, and sales of team-related shirts, jackets, and hats skyrocket. Fans of the losing team feel dejected, even embarrassed. Why? Even though fans have little to do with the actual performance of the sports team, their self-image can be wrapped up in their identification with the group. Our tendency to personally invest in the accomplishments of a group is the territory of  social identity theory .

Jeffrey Webster, director of human resources at a Nissan plant in Mississippi, also serves as the director of the plant’s gospel choir. Choir members are a diverse group of employees who identify with each other as they all share a love of singing and performing for fellow workers, company executives, state officials, and community events.

Source: Rogelio V. Solis/AP Images

Social identity theory proposes that people have emotional reactions to the failure or success of their group because their self-esteem gets tied to whatever happens to the group. 3  When your group does well, you bask in reflected glory, and your own self-esteem rises. When your group does poorly, you might feel bad about yourself, or you might reject that part of your identity like “fair-weather fans.” Furthermore, if your group is devalued and disrespected, your social identity might feel threatened, and you might endorse deviant behaviors to “get even” and restore your group’s standing. 4  Social identities can even lead people to experience pleasure as a result of seeing another group suffer. We often see these feelings of schadenfreude in the joy fans experience when a hated team loses. 5

People develop many identities through the course of their lives. You might define yourself in terms of the organization you work for, the city you live in, your profession, your religious background, your ethnicity, and/or your gender. Over time, some groups you belong to may become more significant to you than others. A U.S. expatriate working in Rome might be very aware of being from the United States, for instance, but doesn’t give national identity a second thought when transferring from Tulsa to Tucson. 6  We may thus pick and choose which of our social identities are salient to the situation, or we may find that our social identities are in conflict, such as the identities of business leader and parent. 7

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

Until now, we’ve discussed social identities primarily in a cultural context. However, the identity we may feel with respect to our organization is only one aspect of our work-related identities (see OB Poll). Within our organizations and workgroups, we can develop many identities through: (1) relational identification, when we connect with others because of our roles, and (2) collective identification, when we connect with the aggregate characteristics of our groups. Often, our identification with our workgroups is stronger than with our organizations, but both are important to positive outcomes in attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, if we have low identification in relation to the group, there may be increased among by group members. If we have low identification with our organizations, we may experience decreased satisfaction and engage in fewer organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). 10

OB Poll Most People Report Drinking with Coworkers Is Acceptable

note: Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) survey of 501 individuals and how drinking is viewed in their organization at a range of work-related activities.

Source: Based on S. M. Heathfield, “To Drink or Not to Drink: Does Alcohol Drinking Mix Safely with Work Events?” About.com Guide, 2013,  http://humanresources.about.com/od/networking/qt/drink_i3.htm .

Ingroups and Outgroups

Ingroup favoritism  occurs when we see members of our group as better than other people, and people not in our group as all the same. Recent research suggests that people with low openness and/or low agreeableness are more susceptible to ingroup favoritism. 11

Whenever there is an ingroup, there is by necessity an  outgroup , which is sometimes everyone else, but is usually an identified group known by the ingroup’s members. For example, if my ingroup is the Republican party in U.S. politics, my outgroup might be anyone in the world who is not a Republican, but it’s more likely to be the other U.S. political parties, or perhaps just Democrats.

When there are ingroups and outgroups, there is often animosity between them. One of the most powerful sources of ingroup–outgroup feelings is the practice of religion, even in the workplace. One global study, for instance, found that when groups became heavily steeped in religious rituals and discussions, they became especially discriminatory toward outgroups and aggressive if the outgroups had more resources. 12  Consider an example from another study of a U.K. Muslim organization that supported Al-Qaeda and identified moderate U.K. Muslims as its outgroup. The Al-Qaeda ingroup was not neutral toward the moderate outgroup; instead, the ingroup denounced the moderates, denigrating them as deviant and threatening outward aggression. 13

Social Identity Threat

Ingroups and outgroups pave the way for social identity threat, which is akin to stereotype threat (see  Chapter 6 ). With social identity threat, individuals believe they will be personally negatively evaluated due to their association with a devalued group, and they may lose confidence and performance effectiveness. One study found, for example, that when subjects from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds took a high-pressure math test, the low-status subjects who felt social identity threat could be as confident as the high-status subjects only when they were first deliberately encouraged about their abilities. 14

Stages of Group Development

1. 2 Describe the punctuated-equilibrium model of group development.

  Watch It!

If your professor has assigned this, go to the Assignments section of  mymanagementlab.com  to complete the video exercise titled  Witness.org: Managing Groups & Teams .

Temporary groups with finite deadlines pass through a unique sequencing of actions (or inaction): (1) Their first meeting sets the group’s direction, (2) the first phase of group activity is one of inertia and thus slower progress, (3) a transition takes place exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time, (4) this transition initiates major changes, (5) a second phase of inertia follows the transition, and (6) the group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity. 15  This pattern, called the  punctuated-equilibrium model , is shown in  Exhibit 9-1 .

Exhibit 1

The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model

Let’s discuss each stage of the model. At the first meeting, the group’s general purpose and direction is established, and then a framework of behavioral patterns and assumptions through which the group will approach its project emerges, sometimes in the first few seconds of the group’s existence. Once set, the group’s direction is solidified and is unlikely to be reexamined throughout the first half of its life. This is a period of inertia—the group tends to stand still or become locked into a fixed course of action even if it gains new insights that challenge initial patterns and assumptions.

One of the most interesting discoveries in studies was that groups experienced a transition precisely halfway between the first meeting and the official deadline—whether members spent an hour on their project or 6 months. The midpoint appears to work like an alarm clock, heightening members’ awareness that their time is limited and they need to get moving. This transition ends phase 1 and is characterized by a concentrated burst of changes, dropping of old patterns, and adoption of new perspectives. The transition sets a revised direction for phase 2, a new equilibrium or period of inertia in which the group executes plans created during the transition period.

The group’s last meeting is characterized by a final burst of activity to finish its work. In summary, the punctuated-equilibrium model characterizes groups as exhibiting long periods of inertia interspersed with brief revolutionary changes triggered primarily by members’ awareness of time and deadlines. This is not the only model of group stages by far, but it is a dominant theory with strong support. Keep in mind, however, that this model doesn’t apply to all groups but is suited to the finite quality of temporary task groups working under a time deadline. 16

Group Property 1: Roles

1. 3 Show how role requirements change in different situations.

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

Shakespeare said, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” Using the same metaphor, all group members are actors, each playing a  role , a set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit. We are required to play a number of diverse roles, both on and off our jobs. As we’ll see, one of the tasks in understanding behavior is grasping the role a person is currently playing.

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

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

Role Perception

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

Role Expectations

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

In the workplace, we look at role expectations through the perspective of the  psychological contract : an unwritten agreement that exists between employees and employers. This agreement sets out mutual expectations. 17  Management is expected to treat employees justly, provide acceptable working conditions, clearly communicate what is a fair day’s work, and give feedback on how well an employee is doing. Employees are expected to demonstrate a good attitude, follow directions, and show loyalty to the organization.

Les Hatton, manager of a Recreational Equipment, Inc., store in Manhattan, pumps up employees before the store’s grand opening. Part of the psychological contract between REI and its employees is the expectation that salespeople will display enthusiasm and generate excitement while welcoming and serving customers.

Source: Matt Payton/AP Images

What happens if management is derelict in its part of the bargain? We can expect negative effects on employee performance and satisfaction. One study among restaurant managers found that violations of the psychological contract were related to greater intentions to quit, while another study of a variety of different industries found psychological contracts were associated with lower levels of productivity, higher levels of theft, and greater work withdrawal. 18

There is evidence that perceptions of psychological contracts vary across cultures. In France, where people are individualistic and power is more asymmetric, contracts are perceived as self-interested yet favoring the more powerful party. In Canada, where people are individualistic but power is more symmetric, contracts are perceived as self-interested yet focused on balanced reciprocity. In China, where people are collectivistic and power is more asymmetric, contracts are perceived as going beyond the work context into employees’ lives. And in Norway, where people are collectivistic but power is more symmetric, contracts are perceived as more relational and based on trust. 19

Role Conflict

When compliance with one role requirement may make it difficult to comply with another, the result is  role conflict . 20  At the extreme, two or more role expectations may be contradictory. For example, if as a manager you were to provide a performance evaluation of a person you mentored, your roles as evaluator and mentor may conflict. Similarly, we can experience  interrole conflict 21  when the expectations of our different, separate groups are in opposition. An example can be found in work–family conflict, which Bill experiences when expectations placed on him as a husband and father differ from those placed on him as an executive with EMM Industries. Bill’s wife and children want to remain in Phoenix, while EMM expects its employees to be responsive to the company’s needs and requirements. Although it might be in Bill’s financial and career interests to accept a relocation, the conflict centers on choosing between family and work role expectations. Indeed, a great deal of research demonstrates that work–family conflict is one of the most significant sources of stress for most employees. 22

Within organizations, most employees are simultaneously in occupations, workgroups, divisions, and demographic groups, and these identities can conflict when the expectations of one clash with the expectations of another. 23  During mergers and acquisitions, employees can be torn between their identities as members of their original organization and of the new parent company. 24  Multinational organizations also have been shown to lead to dual identification—with the local division and with the international organization. 25

Role Play and Assimilation

The degree to which we comply with our role perceptions and expectations—even when we don’t agree with them initially—can be surprising. One of the most illuminating role and identity experiments was done a number of years ago by psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his associates. 26  They created a “prison” in the basement of the Stanford psychology building; hired emotionally stable, physically healthy, law-abiding students who scored “normal average” on personality tests; randomly assigned them the role of either “guard” or “prisoner”; and established some basic rules.

It took little time for the “prisoners” to accept the authority positions of the “guards” and for the mock guards to adjust to their new authority roles. Consistent with social identity theory, the guards came to see the prisoners as a negative outgroup, and they developed stereotypes about the “typical” prisoner personality type. After the guards crushed a rebellion attempt on the second day, the prisoners became increasingly passive. Whatever the guards “dished out,” the prisoners took. The prisoners actually began to believe and act like they were inferior and powerless. Every guard, at some time during the simulation, engaged in abusive, authoritative behavior. One said, “I was surprised at myself. . . . I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle, and I kept thinking: ‘I have to watch out for them in case they try something.’” Surprisingly, during the entire experiment—even after days of abuse—not one prisoner said, “Stop this. I’m a student like you. This is just an experiment!” The researchers had to end the study after only 6 days because of the participants’ pathological reactions.

What can we conclude from this study? Like the rest of us, the participants had learned stereotyped conceptions of guard and prisoner roles from the mass media and their own personal experiences in power and powerless relationships gained at home (parent–child), in school (teacher–student), and in other situations. This background allowed them easily and rapidly to assume roles and, with a vague notion of the social identity of their roles and no prior personality pathology or training for the parts they were playing, to execute extreme forms of behavior consistent with those roles.

MYTH OR SCIENCE?

Gossip and Exclusion Are Toxic for Groups

This is not necessarily true. But it’s certainly counterintuitive, so let’s explore the conditions.

What is gossip? Most of us might say gossip is talking about others, sharing rumors, and speculating about others’ behaviors; gossip affects a person’s reputation. We might also say gossip is malicious, but according to researchers, it can serve positive social functions, too. Prosocial gossip can expose behavior that exploits other people, which can lead to positive changes. For example, if Julie tells Chris that Alex is bullying Summer, then Chris has learned about Alex’s poor behavior through gossiping. Chris might refuse to partner with Alex on a work project, which might limit Alex’s opportunities with the organization, preventing him from bullying more people. Alternatively, as the gossip spreads, Alex might feel exposed for his behavior and conform to group expectations against bullying behavior. In fact, according to research, Alex is likely to cooperate with the group in response to the gossip, and others hearing and spreading the gossip are likely also to cooperate by not acting on their impulses toward bad behavior.

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

Can gossip and ostracism work together? Yes, according to a recent study. When subjects were given an opportunity to gossip about the work of another subject, that subject cooperated more than before; when the opportunity to gossip was paired with the ability to ostracize, that subject cooperated to a much greater degree.

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

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

A follow-up reality television show was conducted by the BBC. 27  The BBC results were dramatically different from those of the Stanford experiment, partially because the show used a less intense simulated prison setting. The “guards” were far more careful in their behavior, limiting their aggressive treatment of “prisoners” and expressing concerns about how their actions might be perceived. In short, they did not fully take on their authority roles, possibly because they knew their behavior was being observed by millions of viewers. These results suggest that less intense situations evoke less extreme behavior, and abuse of roles can be limited when people are made conscious of their behavior.

Group Property 2: Norms

1. 4 Demonstrate how norms exert influence on an individual’s behavior.

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

All groups have established  norms —acceptable standards of behavior shared by members that express what they ought and ought not to do under certain circumstances. It’s not enough for group leaders to share their opinions—even if members adopt the leaders’ views, the effect may last only 3 days! 28  When agreed to by the group, norms influence behavior with a minimum of external controls. Different groups, communities, and societies have different norms, but they all have them. 29  Let’s discuss the levels of influence norms can exert over us, starting with our emotions.

Norms and Emotions

Have you ever noticed how the emotions of one member of your family, especially strong emotions, can influence the emotions of the other members? A family can be a highly normative group. So can a task group whose members work together on a daily basis, because frequent communication can increase the power of norms. A recent study found that, in a task group, individuals’ emotions influenced the group’s emotions and vice versa. This may not be surprising, but researchers also found that norms dictated the experience of emotions for the individuals and for the groups—in other words, people grew to interpret their shared emotions in the same way. 30  As we discovered in Chapters 5  and  6 , our emotions and moods can shape our perspective, so the normative effect of groups can powerfully influence group attitudes and outcomes.

Norms and Conformity

As a member of a group, you desire acceptance by the group. Thus, you are susceptible to conforming to group norms. Considerable evidence suggests that groups can place strong pressures on individual members to change their attitudes and behaviors to match the group’s standard. 31  The impact that group pressures for  conformity  can have on an individual member’s judgment was demonstrated in studies by Solomon Asch and others. 32  Asch made up groups of seven or eight people who were asked to compare two cards. One card had one line, and the other had three lines of varying length, one of which was identical to the line on the one-line card, as  Exhibit 9-2  shows. The difference in line length was obvious; in fact, under ordinary conditions, subjects were incorrect less than 1 percent of the time in announcing which of the three lines matched the single line.

Exhibit 2

Examples of Cards Used in Asch’s Study

An Ethical Choice

Using Peer Pressure as an Influence Tactic

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

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

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

Should you use group peer pressure? As a leader, you may need to. One survey found that only 6 percent of leaders reported being able to successfully influence their employees on their own. Peer pressure hastens a group toward consensus, and levels of peer pressure predict how much the leader can control the group. If you use peer pressure to encourage individuals to work toward team goals and behave consistently with organizational values, it can enhance ethical performance. But your behavior should emphasize acceptance and rewarding of positive behavior, rather than rejection and exclusion, as a means of getting everyone to behave consistently in the group.

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

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

The results over many experiments showed 75 percent of subjects gave at least one answer that conformed—that they knew was wrong but was consistent with the replies of other group members—and the average conformer gave wrong answers 37 percent of the time. This suggests that we feel the pressure toward conformity with group norms. Other recent research with moral decision making indicated an even stronger effect of conformity when subjects found the nonconforming ideas not just incorrect but objectionable. 33  Does that mean we are mere robots? Certainly not. The flip side of the 37 percent of conforming responses is the 63 percent of independent responses, and 95 percent gave the correct (nonconforming) response at least once. Therefore, we feel the pressure to conform, but it is not a perfect predictor of what we will do. Furthermore, we don’t tend to like the pressure. Asch wrote, “Those who participated in this challenging experiment agreed nearly without exception that independence was preferable to conformity.” 34

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

Norms and Behavior

Norms can cover any aspect of group behavior. 35  As we’ve mentioned, norms in the workplace significantly influence employee behavior. This may seem intuitive, but full appreciation of the influence of norms on worker behavior did not occur until the Hawthorne Studies conducted between 1924 and 1932 at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago. 36

From studies of employees at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago, researchers gained valuable insights into how individual behavior is influenced by group norms. They also learned that money was less of a factor in determining worker output than were group standards, sentiments, and security.

Source: Hawthorne Museum of Morton College

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

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

A wage incentive plan was then introduced in the bank wiring observation room. The most important finding was that employees did not individually maximize their output. Rather, their role performance became controlled by a group norm. Members were afraid that if they significantly increased their output, the unit incentive rate might be cut, the expected daily output might be increased, layoffs might occur, or slower workers might be reprimanded. So the group established its idea of a fair output—neither too much nor too little. Members helped each other ensure their reports were nearly level, and the norms the group established included a number of behavioral “don’ts.” Don’t be a rate-buster, turning out too much work. Don’t be a chiseler, turning out too little work. Don’t squeal on any of your peers. The group enforced its norms with name-calling, ridicule, and even punches to the upper arms of violators. It thus operated well below its capability, using norms that were tightly established and strongly enforced.

Positive Norms and Group Outcomes

One goal of every organization with corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives is for its values to hold normative sway over employees. After all, if employees aligned their thinking with positive norms, these norms would become stronger and the probability of positive impact would grow exponentially. We might expect the same outcomes from political correctness (PC) norms. But what is the effect of strong positive norms on group outcomes? The popular thinking is that to increase creativity in groups, for instance, norms should be loosened. However, research on gender-diverse groups indicates that strong PC norms increase group creativity. Why? Clear expectations about male-female interactions reduce uncertainty about group expectations, 37  which allows the members to more easily express their creative ideas without combatting stereotype norms.

Positive group norms may well beget positive outcomes, but only if other factors are present, too. For instance, in a recent study a high level of group extraversion predicted helping behaviors more strongly when there were positive cooperation norms. 38  As powerful as norms can be, though, not everyone is equally susceptible to positive group norms. Individual personalities factor in, too, as well as the level of a person’s social identity with the group. Also, a recent study in Germany indicated that the more satisfied people were with their groups, the more closely they followed group norms. 39

Negative Norms and Group Outcomes

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

What do these illustrations have in common? They represent employees exposed to acts of deviant workplace behavior. 40  As we discussed in  Chapter 3 , counterproductive work behavior (CWB) or  deviant workplace behavior  (also called antisocial behavior or workplace incivility) is voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members.  Exhibit 9-3  provides a typology of deviant workplace behaviors, with examples of each.

Exhibit 3

Typology of Deviant Workplace Behavior

Sources: S. H. Appelbaum, G. D. Iaconi, and A. Matousek, “Positive and Negative Deviant Workplace Behaviors: Causes, Impacts, and Solutions,” Corporate Governance 7, no. 5 (2007): 586–98; and R. W. Griffin, and A. O’Leary-Kelly, The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior (New York: Wiley, 2004).

Few organizations will admit to creating or condoning conditions that encourage and maintain deviant behaviors. Yet they exist. For one, as we discussed before, a workgroup can become characterized by positive or negative attributes. When those attributes are negative, such as when a workgroup is high in psychopathy and aggression, the characteristics of deceit, amorality, and intent to harm others are pronounced. 41  Second, employees have been reporting an increase in rudeness and disregard toward others by bosses and coworkers in recent years. Workplace incivility, like many other deviant behaviors, has many negative outcomes for the victims. 42  Nearly half of employees who have suffered this incivility say it has led them to think about changing jobs; 12 percent actually quit because of it. 43  Also, a study of nearly 1,500 respondents found that in addition to increasing turnover intentions, incivility at work increased reports of psychological stress and physical illness. 44  Third, research suggests that a lack of sleep, which is often caused by heightened work demands and which hinders a person’s ability to regulate emotions and behaviors, can lead to deviant behavior. As organizations have tried to do more with less, pushing their employees to work extra hours, they may indirectly be facilitating deviant behavior. 45

Like norms in general, employees’ antisocial actions are shaped by the group context within which they work. Evidence demonstrates deviant workplace behavior is likely to flourish where it’s supported by group norms. 46  For example, workers who socialize either at or outside work with people who are frequently absent from work are more likely to be absent themselves. 47  Thus when deviant workplace norms surface, employee cooperation, commitment, and motivation are likely to suffer.

What are the consequences of workplace deviance for groups? Some research suggests a chain reaction occurs in groups with high levels of dysfunctional behavior. 48  The process begins with negative behaviors like shirking, undermining coworkers, or being generally uncooperative. As a result of these behaviors, the group collectively starts to have negative moods. These negative moods then result in poor coordination of effort and lower levels of group performance.

Norms and Culture

Do people in collectivist cultures have different norms than people in individualist cultures? Of course they do. But did you know that our orientation may be changed, even after years of living in one society? In a recent experiment, an organizational role-playing exercise was given to a neutral group of subjects; the exercise stressed either collectivist or individualist norms. Subjects were then given a task of their personal choice or were assigned one by an ingroup or outgroup person. When the individualist-primed subjects were allowed personal choice of the task, or the collectivist-primed subjects were assigned the task by an ingroup person, they became more highly motivated. 49

Group Property 3: Status, and Group Property 4: Size and Dynamics

1. 5 Show how status and size differences affect group performance.

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

Group Property 3: Status

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

WHAT DETERMINES STATUS? According to  status characteristics theory , status tends to derive from one of three sources: 50

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

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

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

STATUS AND NORMS Status has some interesting effects on the power of norms and pressures to conform. High-status individuals may be more likely to deviate from norms when they have low identification (social identity) with the group. 51  They also eschew pressure from lower-ranking members of other groups. For instance, physicians actively resist administrative decisions made by lower-ranking medical insurance company employees. 52  High-status people are also better able to resist conformity pressures than their lower-status peers. An individual who is highly valued by a group but doesn’t need or care about the group’s social rewards is particularly able to disregard conformity norms. 53  In general, bringing high-status members into a group may improve performance, but only up to a point, perhaps because these members may introduce counterproductive norms. 54

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

Source: Matt Ludtke/AP Images

STATUS AND GROUP INTERACTION People tend to become more assertive when they seek to attain higher status in a group. 55  They speak out more often, criticize more, state more commands, and interrupt others more often. Lower-status members tend to participate less actively in group discussions; when they possess expertise and insights that could aid the group, failure to fully utilize these members reduces the group’s overall performance. But that doesn’t mean a group of only high-status individuals would be preferable. Adding some high-status individuals to a group of mid-status individuals may be advantageous because group performance suffers when too many high-status people are in the mix. 56

STATUS INEQUITY It is important for group members to believe the status hierarchy is equitable. Perceived inequity creates disequilibrium, which inspires various types of corrective behaviors. Hierarchical groups can lead to resentment among those at the lower end of the status continuum. Large differences in status within groups are also associated with poorer individual performance, lower health, and higher intentions for the lower-status members to leave the group. 57

Groups generally agree within themselves on status criteria; hence, there is usually high concurrence on group rankings of individuals. Business executives may use personal income or the growth rate of their companies as determinants of status. Government bureaucrats may use the size of their budgets, and blue-collar workers may use their years of seniority. Managers who occupy central positions in their social networks are typically seen as higher in status by their subordinates, and this position actually translates into greater influence over the group’s functioning. 58

Groups generally form an informal status order based on ranking and command of needed resources. 59  Individuals can find themselves in conflicts when they move between groups whose status criteria are different, or when they join groups whose members have heterogeneous backgrounds. Cultures also differ in their criteria for conferring status upon individuals. When groups are heterogeneous, status differences may initiate conflict as the group attempts to reconcile the separate hierarchies. As we’ll see in  Chapter 10 , this can be a problem when management creates teams of employees from varied functions.

STATUS AND STIGMATIZATION Although it’s clear that your own status affects the way people perceive you, the status of people with whom you are affiliated can also affect others’ views of you. Studies have shown that people who are stigmatized can “infect” others with their stigma. This “stigma by association” effect can result in negative opinions and evaluations of the person affiliated with the stigmatized individual, even if the association is brief and purely coincidental. Of course, many of the foundations of cultural status differences have no merit in the first place. For example, men interviewing for a job were viewed as less qualified when they were sitting next to an obese woman in a waiting room. Another study looking at the effects of being associated with an overweight person found that even when onlookers were told the target person and the overweight person were unrelated, the target person was still devalued. 60

GROUP STATUS Early in life, we acquire an “us and them” mentality. 61  You may have correctly surmised that if you are in an outgroup, your group is of lower status in the eyes of the associated ingroup’s members. Culturally, sometimes ingroups represent the dominant forces in a society and are given high status, which can create discrimination against their outgroups. Low-status groups, perhaps in response to this discrimination, are likely to leverage ingroup favoritism to compete for higher status. 62  When high-status groups then feel the discrimination from low-status groups, they may increase their bias against the outgroups. 63  With each cycle, the groups become more polarized.

Group Property 4: Size and Dynamics

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

One of the most important findings about the size of a group concerns  social loafing , the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when alone. 64  Social loafing directly challenges the assumption that the productivity of the group as a whole should at least equal the sum of the productivity of the individuals in it, no matter what the group size.

What causes social loafing? It may be a belief that others in the group are not carrying their fair share. If you see others as lazy or inept, you can reestablish equity by reducing your effort. But simply failing to contribute may not be enough for someone to be labeled a “free rider.” Instead, the group must believe the social loafer is acting in an exploitive manner (benefitting at the expense of other team members). 65  Another explanation for social loafing is the diffusion of responsibility. Because group results cannot be attributed to any single person, the relationship between an individual’s input and the group’s output is clouded. Individuals may then be tempted to become free riders and coast on the group’s efforts.

The implications for OB are significant. When managers use collective work situations, they must also be able to identify individual efforts. Furthermore, greater performance diversity creates greater social loafing the longer a group is together, which decreases satisfaction and performance. 66

Social loafing appears to have a Western bias. It’s consistent with individualist cultures, such as the United States and Canada, that are dominated by self-interest. It is not consistent with collectivist societies, in which individuals are motivated by group goals. For example, in studies comparing U.S. employees with employees from China and Israel (both collectivist societies), the Chinese and Israelis showed no propensity to engage in social loafing and actually performed better in a group than alone.

Young employees of Alibaba’s Tmall online shopping site celebrate their group’s achievement of increasing the volume of sales orders during China’s “Singles Day” shopping event. Although social loafing is consistent with individualistic cultures, in collectivist societies such as China, employees are motivated by group goals and perform better in groups than they do by working individually.

Source: Han Chuanhao Xinhua News Agency/Newscom

Research indicates that the stronger an individual’s work ethic is, the less likely that person is to engage in social loafing. 67  Also, the greater the level of conscientiousness and agreeableness in a group, the more likely that performance will remain high whether there is social loafing or not. 68  There are ways to prevent social loafing: (1) set group goals, so the group has a common purpose to strive toward; (2) increase intergroup competition, which focuses on the shared group outcome; (3) engage in peer evaluations; (4) select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in groups; and (5) base group rewards in part on each member’s unique contributions. 69  Recent research indicates that social loafing can be counteracted by publicly posting individual performance ratings for group members, too. 70  Although no magic bullet will prevent social loafing, these steps should help minimize its effect.

Group Property 5: Cohesiveness, and Group Property 6: Diversity

1. 6 Describe how issues of cohesiveness and diversity can be integrated for group effectiveness.

For a group to be highly functioning, it must act cohesively as a unit, but not because all the group members think and act alike. In some ways, the properties of cohesiveness and diversity need to be valued way back at the tacit establishment of roles and norms—will the group be inclusive of all its members, regardless of differences in backgrounds? Let’s discuss the importance of group cohesiveness first.

Group Property 5: Cohesiveness

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

Cohesiveness affects group productivity. Studies consistently show that the relationship between cohesiveness and productivity depends on the group’s performance-related norms. 71  If norms for quality, output, and cooperation with outsiders are high, a cohesive group will be more productive than a less cohesive group. But if cohesiveness is high and performance norms are low, productivity will be low. If cohesiveness is low and performance norms are high, productivity increases, but less than in the high-cohesiveness/high-norms situation. When cohesiveness and performance-related norms are both low, productivity tends to fall into the low-to-moderate range. These conclusions are summarized in  Exhibit 9-4 .

Exhibit 4

Relationship Between Group Cohesiveness, Performance Norms, and Productivity

What can you do to encourage group cohesiveness? (1) Make the group smaller, (2) encourage agreement with group goals, (3) increase the time members spend together, (4) increase the group’s status and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership, (5) stimulate competition with other groups, (6) give rewards to the group rather than to individual members, and (7) physically isolate the group. 72

Group Property 6: Diversity

The final property of groups we consider is  diversity  in the group’s membership, or the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one another. Overall, studies identify both costs and benefits from group diversity.

Diversity appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early stages of a group’s tenure; this often lowers group morale and raises dropout rates. One study compared groups that were culturally diverse and homogeneous (composed of people from the same country). On a wilderness survival test, the groups performed equally well, but the members from the diverse groups were less satisfied with their groups, were less cohesive, and had more conflict. 73  Another study examined the effect of differences in tenure on the performance of 67 engineering research and development groups. 74  When most people had roughly the same level of tenure, performance was high, but as tenure diversity increased, performance dropped off. There was an important qualifier: Higher levels of tenure diversity were not related to lower performance for groups when there were effective team-oriented human resources (HR) practices. More specifically, groups in which members’ values or opinions differ tend to experience more conflict, but leaders who can get the group to focus on the task at hand and encourage group learning are able to reduce these conflicts and enhance discussion of group issues. 75  Gender diversity can also be a challenge to a group, but if inclusiveness is stressed, group conflict and dissatisfaction are lowered. 76

You may have correctly surmised that the type of group diversity matters. Surface-level diversity—in observable characteristics such as national origin, race, and gender—alerts people to possible deep-level diversity—in underlying attitudes, values, and opinions. One researcher argues, “The mere presence of diversity you can see, such as a person’s race or gender, actually cues a team that there’s likely to be differences of opinion.” 77  Surface-level diversity may subconsciously cue team members to be more open-minded in their views. 78  For example, two studies of MBA student groups found surface-level diversity led to greater openness. The effects of deep-level diversity are less understood. Research in Korea indicates that putting people with a high need for power  with those with a low need for power can reduce unproductive group competition, whereas putting individuals with a similar need for achievement may increase task performance. 79

Although differences can lead to conflict, they also provide an opportunity to solve problems in unique ways. One study of jury behavior found diverse juries were more likely to deliberate longer, share more information, and make fewer factual errors when discussing evidence. Altogether, the impact of diversity on groups is mixed. It is difficult to be in a diverse group in the short term. However, if members can weather their differences, over time diversity may help them be more open-minded and creative and to do better. But even positive effects are unlikely to be especially strong. As one review stated, “The business case (in terms of demonstrable financial results) for diversity remains hard to support based on the extant research.” 80  Yet, other researchers argue that we shouldn’t overlook the effects of homogeneity, many of which can be detrimental. 81

 Personal Inventory Assessments 

Communicating Supportively

Are you a supportive person? Take this PIA to find out if you communicate supportively.

One possible side effect in diverse teams—especially those that are diverse in terms of surface-level characteristics—is  faultlines , or perceived divisions that split groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as sex, race, age, work experience, and education.

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

Research on faultlines has shown that splits are generally detrimental to group functioning and performance. Subgroups may compete with each other, which takes time away from core tasks and harms group performance. Groups that have subgroups learn more slowly, make more risky decisions, are less creative, and experience higher levels of conflict. Subgroups may not trust each other. Finally, satisfaction with subgroups is generally high, but the overall group’s satisfaction is lower when faultlines are present. 82

Are faultlines ever a good thing? One study suggested that faultlines based on differences in skill, knowledge, and expertise could be beneficial when the groups were in organizational cultures that strongly emphasized results. Why? A results-driven culture focuses people’s attention on what’s important to the company rather than on problems arising from subgroups. 83  Another study showed that problems stemming from strong faultlines based on gender and educational major were counteracted when their roles were cross-cut and the group as a whole was given a common goal to strive for. Together, these strategies force collaboration between members of subgroups and focus their efforts on accomplishing a goal that transcends the boundary imposed by the faultline. 84

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

Group Decision Making

1. 7 Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.

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

Groups versus the Individual

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

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

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

EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on how you define effectiveness. Group decisions are generally more accurate than the decisions of the average individual in a group, but less accurate than the judgments of the most accurate person. 85  In terms of speed, individuals are superior. If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effective. And if effectiveness means the degree of acceptance of achievable solutions, the nod again goes to the group. 86

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

In summary, groups are an excellent vehicle for performing many steps in the decision-making process and offer both breadth and depth of input for information gathering. If group members have diverse backgrounds, the alternatives generated should be more extensive and the analysis more critical. When the final solution is agreed on, there are more people in a group decision to support and implement it. These pluses, however, may be more than offset by the time consumed by group decisions, the internal conflicts they create, and the pressures they generate toward conformity. We must be careful to define the types of conflicts, however. Research in Korea indicates that group conflicts about tasks may increase group performance, while conflicts in relationships may decrease performance. 87  In some cases, therefore, we can expect individuals to make better decisions than groups.

Career OBjectives

Can I fudge the numbers and not take the blame?

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

— Jean-Claude

Dear Jean-Claude:

The short answer is that, since you are in a leadership role in the group, you may not have the option of blaming the others. Further, you may be held individually accountable as a leader for the outcomes of this situation.

Your dilemma is not unusual. Once we think of ourselves as part of a collective, we want to stay in the group and can become vulnerable to pressures to conform. The pressure you’re getting from multiple members can make you aware that you’re in the minority in the group, and taunting can make you feel like an outsider or lesser member; therefore threats to harm your group standing may feel powerful.

So you have a choice: Submit to the pressure and continue misrepresenting your group’s success, or adhere to the responsibility you have as the treasurer and come clean. From an ethical standpoint, we hope you don’t consider the first option an acceptable choice. To make a change, you may be able to use social identification to your advantage. Rather than challenging the group as a whole, try meeting with individual group members to build trust, talking to each as fellow members of a worthy group that can succeed without any ethical quandaries. Don’t try to build a coalition; instead, build trust with individuals and change the climate of the group to value ethical behavior. Then the next time you need to report the numbers, you can call upon the group’s increased ethical awareness to gain support for your leadership decisions.

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

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

Groupthink and Groupshift

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

Groupthink  relates to norms and describes situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views. Groupthink attacks many groups and can dramatically hinder their performance.  Groupshift  describes the way group members tend to exaggerate their initial positions when discussing a given set of alternatives to arrive at a solution. In some situations, caution dominates and there is a conservative shift, while in other situations groups tend toward a risky shift. Let’s look at each phenomenon in detail.

GROUPTHINK Groupthink appears closely aligned with the conclusions Solomon Asch drew in his experiments with a lone dissenter. Individuals who hold a position different from that of the dominant majority are under pressure to suppress, withhold, or modify their true feelings and beliefs. As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement—to be a positive part of the group—than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption would improve effectiveness. Groups that are more focused on performance than learning are especially likely to fall victim to groupthink and to suppress the opinions of those who do not agree with the majority. 88

Does groupthink attack all groups? No. It seems to occur most often when there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive image of their group they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to its positive image. 89  One study showed that those influenced by groupthink were more confident about their course of action early on; 90  however, groups that believe too strongly in the correctness of their course of action are more likely to suppress dissent and encourage conformity than groups that are more skeptical about their course of action.

What can managers do to minimize groupthink? 91  First, they can monitor group size. People grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases, and although there is no magic number that will eliminate groupthink, individuals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups get larger than about 10 members. Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of deliberation. In addition, managers should appoint one group member to play the role of devil’s advocate, overtly challenging the majority position and offering divergent perspectives. Yet another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate active discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group or intensifying identity protection. Have group members delay discussion of possible gains so they can first talk about the dangers or risks inherent in a decision. Requiring members to initially focus on the negatives of an alternative makes the group less likely to stifle dissenting views and more likely to gain an objective evaluation.

GROUPSHIFT OR GROUP POLARIZATION There are differences between group decisions and the individual decisions of group members. 92  In groups, discussion leads members toward a more extreme view of the position they already held. Conservatives become more cautious, and more aggressive types take on more risk. We can view this group polarization as a special case of groupthink. The group’s decision reflects the dominant decision-making norm—toward greater caution or more risk—that develops during discussion.

The shift toward polarization has several explanations. 93  It’s been argued, for instance, that discussion makes the members more comfortable with each other and thus more willing to express extreme versions of their original positions. Another argument is that the group diffuses responsibility. Group decisions free any single member from accountability for the group’s final choice, so a more extreme position can be taken. It’s also likely that people take extreme positions because they want to demonstrate how different they are from the outgroup. 94  People on the fringes of political or social movements take on ever-more-extreme positions just to prove they are really committed to the cause, whereas those who are more cautious tend to take moderate positions to demonstrate how reasonable they are.

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

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

Group Decision-Making Techniques

The most common form of group decision making takes place in  interacting groups . Members meet face to face and rely on both verbal and nonverbal interaction to communicate. But as our discussion of groupthink demonstrated, interacting groups often censor themselves and pressure individual members toward conformity of opinion. Brainstorming and the nominal group technique can reduce problems inherent in the traditional interacting group.

BRAINSTORMING  Brainstorming  can overcome the pressures for conformity that dampen creativity 95  by encouraging any and all alternatives while withholding criticism. In a typical brainstorming session, a half-dozen to a dozen people sit around a table. The group leader states the problem in a clear manner so all participants understand. Members then freewheel as many alternatives as they can in a given length of time. To encourage members to “think the unusual,” no criticism is allowed, even of the most bizarre suggestions, and all ideas are recorded for later discussion and analysis.

Brainstorming may indeed generate ideas—but not in a very efficient manner. Research consistently shows individuals working alone generate more ideas than a group in a brainstorming session. One reason for this is “production blocking.” When people are generating ideas in a group, many are talking at once, which blocks individuals’ thought process and eventually impedes the sharing of ideas. 96

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

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

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

3. The group discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them.

4. Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.

The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits a group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking. Research generally shows nominal groups outperform brainstorming groups. 97

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

Exhibit 5

Evaluating Group Effectiveness

Summary

We can draw several implications from our discussion of groups. First, norms control behavior by establishing standards of right and wrong. Second, status inequities create frustration and can adversely influence productivity and willingness to remain with an organization. Third, the impact of size on a group’s performance depends on the type of task. Fourth, cohesiveness may influence a group’s level of productivity, depending on the group’s performance-related norms. Fifth, diversity appears to have a mixed impact on group performance, with some studies suggesting that diversity can help performance and others suggesting the opposite. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced tension and job dissatisfaction. 98  Groups can be carefully managed toward positive organizational outcomes and optimal decision-making. The next chapter will explore several of these conclusions in greater depth.