attention catherine owen

chapter 9. Foundations ofGroup Bchavior 147

酎⑪押印㊨挿画5… G⑱ぬes旨鵬鵬SS

Groups drffer in their cohesiveness→he degree to w皿members are attracted to each

other and motivated to stay in也e group. Some workgroups are cohesive because the

members have spent a great deal oftime together’the group’s sma11 size or purpose fac址-

tates high interaction’Or eXtema皿eats have brought members close together.

cohesiveness aifects group productivity. Studies consistently show that the rela-

tionship between cohesiveness and productivity depends on the group,s perfomance-

related noms.50 If noms for qua哩y output’and coopera。on with outsiders are high’

a cohesive group will be more productive than a less cohesive group. But if cohesive-

ness is high and perfomance nomS are low・ PrOductivity will be low. If cohesiveness is

Iow and perfomance nomS are high, PrOductivity increases’but less than in the high-

cohesiveness価gh-nOmS Situation. When cohesiveness and perfomance-related noms

are both low, PrOductivity tends to fa11 into血e low-tO-mOderate range・ These conclusions

are summarized in Exhibit 9-4.

what can you do to encourage grOuP COhesiveness?

1. Make the group sma11er.

2. Encourage agreement Wi血group goals・

3. Increase the time members spend together.

4. Increase the group,s status and血e perceived d触culty of attalning membership.

5. Stimulate competition with other groups.

6. Give rewards to the group rather than to individual members-

7. Physica11y isolate the group・51

釦⑱坤師⑬阿e醍y ⑱:朝鵬繭やy

The final property of groups we conSider is diversity in the group’s membership, Or the

degree tO Which members ofthe group are si皿u to, Or different from・ One anOther. Over-

all, S同dies identify both costs and bene乱s from group diversity・

Diversity appears tO increase group COnflict, eSPeCially in the eady stages of a

group’s tenure・ Which often lowers group mOrale and raises dropout rates. One study

co叩red groups that were culturally diverse and homogeneouS (COmPOSed of people

from the same country). On a wildemess survival test’the groups perfomed equally well,

but the members from the diverse groups were less satisfied with their groups’Were less

cohesive, and had more conflict.52 Groups in whieh members’values or opinions d鵬r

Cohesiveness

臣X鵬肥町9・包

The lmpa⊂t Of

Cohesiveness

and Perfo「mance

Norms On

Productivity

S 重 し o 之 容 u 〇 … し ○ 事 案 0 鶴

against their outgroups. Low-StatuS grOuPS・ Perhaps in response tO this discriminat血

aI℃止kely to leverage lngrOuP favoritism to compete for higher status.42 when high-StatuS

groups then feel the drscrinrfuation from low-StatuS grOuPS’they may increase their bias

against the outgroupS.43 with each cycle’the groups become more POla五zed・

笹庸⑲押印⑱斡㊧画鮎録e

Does the size of a group a舶the group,s overall behavior? Yds’but the effect depends

on what dependent variables we exa血e. Groups w皿a doz‘en 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加ut the size of a group concemS SOCial lo射

ing, the tendency for individuals to expend less e触t when working collectively than

when alone.44 socia1 loafing directly cha11enges the assumption血at血e 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. The implications for OB are significant. When managerS

use collective work situations, they must also be able to identify individual efforts. Fur-

themore, greater Performance diversity creates greater SOCia1 1oafing the longer a grOuP

is together, Which decreases satisfaction and perfomance.45

social loa丘ng appears tO have a Westem bias. It・s consistent with individua輔c

cultures, SuCh as those found in血e United States and Canada・ Which are do血nated by

se虹nterest. It is not consistent with collectivistic societies・ in which individuals are mo-

tivated by group goals. For exanple’in studies comparing U.S. empIoyees with empIoy-

ees from China and Israel (both collectivistic societies)・ Chinese and Israelis showed no

propensity to engage in social loafrog and actua11y perfomed better in a group血an alone.

Research indicates that the stronger an individual ’s work ethic is・ the less likely that

person is to engage in social loafing.46 AIso’the greater the level of conscientiousness and

agreealbleness (See Chapter 5) in a group・ the more likely血at performance will remain

埋Whether there is social loafrog or not-47 There are wayS tO Prevent SOCia1 1oafing:

1. Set group goalsyso the group has a cormon 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.

5. Base group reWards in part on eaCh member’s unique con軸tions.48

Recent researCh indicates that socia1 1oafing can also be counteracted by publicly

posting individual perfomance ratings for group merhoers, toO.49

輔㊤睡眠⑱醍腕骨常襲亀⑬髄S甘暁軸臣SS・

鯛砂遅配①噂睡晒⑱晒記すY 6‥削V冨R別冊

For a group to be highly functioning言t must act COhesively as a unit・ but not because all

the group members think and act ahke. In some ways’the properties of cohesiveness and

diversity need to be valued at血e initial tacit establishment of roles and norms-Will the

group be inclusive of all its members’regardless of d鵬rences in backgrounds? Let’s

discuss the importance Of group cohesiveness first.