Group Confliction

Chapter 7 Group Influence, Power, Conformity, and Compliance Photo of marching band playing on a football field. "Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided upon is being carried out." —Ronald Reagan Learning Objectives What We Will Be Investigating: * How does power affect group dynamics? * What are the challenges of dissent and deviance within groups? * What are the advantages and disadvantages of conformity in the workplace? * What can we learn from Stanley Milgram's psychological analysis of obedience and control? * What factors have influence between groups and within groups? Introduction Dear Prudie, One of my co-workers has lost all of his hair due to cancer treatments, and someone came up with the idea that we should all shave our heads in solidarity when he returns to work in a few weeks. A few guys have already shaved their heads, and they, along with several others who plan to follow suit, are laying one hell of a guilt trip on the rest of us to shave our heads, too. I have absolutely no desire to do so, and while several others on staff say they don't want to, the guilt trip is working, and none of them wants to risk offending the co-worker when he returns. I don't understand why he would feel any better looking at a dozen bald guys. I've already dusted off my résumé, but changing jobs won't be easy thanks to the economy, and I'm not the kind of guy who just runs away when it's time to take a stand. I don't want a confrontation, but I didn't pick this battle, and I fully expect that I'll need to find a less toxic place to work because of my decision. —Not a Shorn Sheep Dear Not Shorn, I understand the impulse behind the head-shaving gesture, and maybe your ailing co-worker will be both moved and amused. It's also possible that he'll feel uncomfortable and self-conscious. But surely he wouldn't want every male in the office to be bullied into going along with the show of "solidarity." You have every right to say, "What you're doing is great, but it's not for me" and to be completely left alone. I accept that there is a coercive group dynamic at work here, but your tone indicates a level of hostility that will only make things worse. Instead of engaging in battle, you have to be calm, pleasant, and firm. And unless your boss is wielding a pair of clippers, surely someone in charge would want to know that what should be a private choice is becoming an office-wide hazing. —Prudie (from Slate online magazine) The plight of this worker is one that we all have encountered at one time or another. There are instances that unfold around us, almost without us knowing it, until we're suddenly confronted with decisions we never thought we'd have to make. It could be something as minor as agreeing to let someone in grade school copy your homework or as you got older perhaps trying your first sip of alcohol among friends. Regardless of the context, we find ourselves feeling pressured by the dynamics of the larger group, which by its sheer numbers exerts a power that we must either attempt to reject or, as in many cases, conform or comply with. Sometimes our conformity can be a good thing; other times it may have negative consequences. But in any case, no matter the outcome, our decisions are in some way informed and affected by the power of the group. In this chapter, we build upon our previous discussion of group structures and processes by examining more closely the power groups exert in relation to our individual choices. We will attempt to better understand how we respond to the force of group dynamics. We will also look more closely at the differences between conformity and compliance. These terms may seem synonymous to you, yet they are not. This chapter illustrates the difference and how that difference can make a difference in management and in business. Employees and employers must both recognize the opportunities and pitfalls that come with power (and with a sense of relative powerlessness). It is an important managerial skill to wield power in such a way that it contributes to the goals of the business, rather than interferes with those goals. 7.1 Power and Influence in Groups Highly cohesive groups have more influence over their members. Thus, the study of cohesion naturally leads to more thoroughly examining how groups affect their members. We can define influence as the interpersonal processes that change group members' initial thoughts, feelings, and behavior, typically in the direction of group goals. Alternatively, group influence may create inertia in members' thoughts, feelings, and behavior when outside forces might argue for members to change. Cohesive groups have more influence because their members want to belong. In the case of the interpersonal attraction dimension of cohesion, recall that group members may conform because they want to preserve harmony in the group and they want other people in the group to like them, or at the least to accept their membership in the group. Thus cohesive groups can better set norms, or evaluative standards for behavior. Members of cohesive groups are more likely to behaviorally conform to these norms, that is, they willingly accept influence. Moreover, cohesive groups also are more likely to be—or become—marked by a relative uniformity of opinions, attitudes, and values. Management Connections Group Work Think of some of the groups you've been in: Maybe you worked on your high school yearbook, were part of a church choir, or belonged to a club with fellow enthusiasts devoted to a particular pastime or hobby. In addition to these, you may also have participated in groups at work. Begin by listing the various groups to which you have belonged (or currently belong), both at work and outside work. Consider the dynamics of two or three of these groups, and think about how you would, in generally, characterize how they functioned. Now consider these questions: * What positive aspects of the groups can you identify? * What negative aspects of the groups can you identify? * What pressures were brought to conform to the values of the group? * What incentives were provided for creative and critical thought? * Was pressure to conform brought from within the group, or from outside of the group? * Were there any conflicts between your personal beliefs and the ideas expressed by the larger group? How did you resolve any such conflicts? * Did you feel part of the group? If so, what made you feel part of the group? If not, what prevented it? * Did everyone feel included in the group, or were some people excluded in one way or another? Now having assessed your experience with groups, what are three guidelines you would set if you were managing a group of people who were coming together for the first time for a project? Power is the exercise or implementation of influence. Those who are able to exert power are able to get others to do what they want, that is, they can control others' outcomes, or they can stop unwanted behaviors in others. But it would be a mistake to see power as simply residing in any one person, such as the titular group leader. Power is at least as much relational and positional as it is a personal characteristic. Power as a personal characteristic implies a forceful individual who is able to exert influence through sheer force of will. On the other hand, power as defined relationally implies at least two individuals, one to exert influence and at least a second to accept it. We have actually met positional power before when we studied social roles. Recall that the American president has certain prerogatives that reside in the role, rather than in individual personality characteristics. Bosses can typically make demands upon employees. Power and status intertwine because those individuals with higher group status typically are able to exert more influence as well. Supporting the positional and relational perspectives, groups can wield power through the coordinated actions of their members. For example, when members at a group meeting declaim the actions of another member, culminating in expelling that member from the group, we have seen a collective, not an individual, application of power. When a work group recommends a course of action on marketing a new product, this is a collective attempt to exert influence. Because groups can appeal to certain bases of power, such as legitimate power, more than single individuals can, their decisions can appear more justified and less capricious. Individual members within groups often jockey for status, power, and rewards. For example, there is commonly competition for promotions and raises within a particular organization. In courses that are graded on a curve, students contend for grades. Individuals also keep an eye out for other groups, perhaps to increase their status or power by moving from one group to another, either within the same organization or from one organization to a second. And of course, within the same company groups can compete with other groups to increase their overall status or power. This chapter mostly addresses influence that flows from group members. Later in the chapter, we focus further on how groups as collectivities wield influence. Obviously, more influential groups also have a greater impact on group performance. In Chapter 9, we will study leadership in considerable depth. Important members, groups, and leaders form a triangle of influence. 7.2 Conformity Versus Compliance In recent years, social psychologists have drawn a clear terminological and motivational distinction between conformity versus compliance. This distinction is still relatively new and it is important because earlier treatments of influence tended to blur the differences between these two concepts. Thus, Milgram discussed his classic research in the shock studies we will examine below as "conformity to obedience." A more recent group dynamicist would call Milgram's research examples compliance rather than conformity, because study participants became highly reluctant to cooperate in the later stages of the experiments. In conformity, individuals accept influence because they want to. Thus, conformity is internally driven: It is affected by motivation, internalized norms; by the desire to belong to a particular collectivity, and sometimes by whether the behavior appears meaningful. In conformity, there is typically correspondence between the individual's internal feelings and his or her external behavior; acceptance of influence occurs in both public and private behavior. For example, if your doctor persuades you that it is in your best interests to lose weight, exercise more often, and stop smoking, and you feel her directives make sense, your initiation of a new diet and exercise plan would be considered conformity—you conformed to your doctor's suggestions for healthier living. Photo of doctor talking to a patient. Listening to and acting on your doctor's prescriptions is an act of conforming. Americans tend to think of conforming as a negative thing, but obviously that's not always the case. Many of the adjustments of attitudes and behavior in groups occur because of conformity. Group members may not even be consciously aware that they have conformed because their behavior is "unthinking" (Berkowitz, 1990). Even when conformity may be awkward, difficult, or costly, individuals may adjust because the behavior is normative, that is, it is seen as legitimate, right, and proper. Consider a devout Christian attending services at a Hindu ashram. There may be some degree of conflict in terms of the behavior asked of the Christian, but the obvious thing to do is participate in a service one voluntarily attended. In this case, conformity seems quite appropriate. Conscience behaviors, even when the individual realizes that they may incur penalties from other groups or the larger society, are an example of normative behaviors. Imagine you are sitting around with a group of friends, one of whom tells an offensive, racist joke. It may be easier to conform and laugh when everyone else does, than to indicate that you find the joke offensive. How often are we willing to speak up in such a situation? What is implied if we do not challenge the assumptions of the person telling the joke? Similarly, consider how we have conformed in the work environment where uniforms are not required but business dress is the norm. In what areas of appearance do we look to group members for cues as to how we should dress? For starters, we also may look to group members for cues on hair length, visible tattoos, appropriate modes of communication, and acceptable types of emotional responses. On the other hand, in compliance, individuals accept influence because they must. Compliance is externally imposed, often by the promise or threat of strong rewards or punishments. Internally, individuals may disagree with the external mandate or feel uncomfortable about it, but nonetheless in public their behavior adjusts to the source of influence. Colloquially put, we go along to get along. Because people want to belong to particular groups, compliance can be one of the prices exerted by influence in groups, especially cohesive groups. Compliance behavior can occur more often when individuals believe they have few or no alternatives in group choice, that is, their comparison level for alternatives is below their comparison level (CL). For example, the job market where the individual lives may be poor and for many reasons she or he may be unable to relocate. Sometimes the individual is determined to join the highest-status fraternity, sorority, or graduate program. If no substitute will do, that individual may comply with demands from the university or social group. If, for example, the worker in the opening to this chapter had ended up shaving his head, he would, in effect, have complied with the mandate of the office. He certainly didn't want to shave his head, but external forces might have been so great that he felt in order to keep his job he had no other choice but to comply. Compliance is also more likely in a total environment, where the group controls many or most domains of an individual's life, such as parents and small children or officers and soldiers, and thus the group or its leaders have control over member rewards and punishments. Compliance is more likely among low-status group members, whereas conformity is more likely among high-status group members, in part because higher-status members usually play a larger role in setting group agendas. Highly cohesive groups not only can create more conformity, but, should the individual wish to belong no matter what, can even be more coercive as well. Photo of boss talking firmly to an employee. With compliance, individuals accept influence because they must—not because they want to. For example, you might comply with the demands of an aggressive boss who has power over your job status. Rather than forcing members to merely comply with group regulations, most groups prefer to instill internalized conformity in their members. There are several reasons why compliance is a much more costly mechanism for groups and societies than conformity: * Surveillance. Typically, compliance requires surveillance to be effective. Leaders or their representatives must carefully watch and correct members because group members may resist influence in their more private behaviors. * Enforcement. Compliance may require specialized role occupants to enforce, such as police or soldiers to ensure that directives are carried out or deviant behavior is squelched. * Blowback. Group members may be disgruntled and as a result engage in sabotage attempts. * Decreased productivity. Due to coercion attempts and enforcement, many group members may become anxious. If anxiety levels due to coercion are high, this may interfere with and lower their productivity on group tasks. * Diminished cohesion. Identification with the collectivity will be lower, which may also negatively influence performance. * Higher turnover. If the opportunity presents itself, members may leave the group entirely for an alternative. All of these potential consequences of trying to force individuals to behave a certain way should warn businesses that the "carrot is better than the stick." External demands have a tendency to result in member resentment, lost productivity, and probable attempts to find employment elsewhere. It is worth the extra time to use more gentle influence and persuasion attempts to instill internally motivated conformity. Consider a boss who has a very productive worker, but who has extensive tattoos on his arms that seem to bother some of the company's customers. The boss wants to keep the worker; will it be more successful to order the worker to hide those tattoos, or are there more subtle—and more effective—ways to achieve this same result? Conformity Three experts discuss experiments that demonstrate how humans deal with pressures to conform. Often companies use a six-month probationary period where the new hire is given high level of support by trainers and supervisors. The trainee is motivated to adhere to company rules so that he or she can get off probation and become a regular member of the organization. Sometimes there is a raise at the end of the six-month period. During the six-month period the trainee is encouraged to ask questions so that he or she can adequately learn the company culture and rules. The company also supplies the trainee with an employee handbook and may reward the trainee for being able to prove that he or she is reading it. Compared to compliance, conformity is relatively cheap! It may require propaganda or perhaps hiring attractive role models to perform behaviors or deliver persuasive speeches. Possibly higher-prestige group members may be willing to welcome, speak with, or otherwise influence recruits and current members or even act as mentors to socialize new recruits. Influence may be delivered through mass means, such as e-mails, bulletins, or television campaigns. A manager, for instance, might take a group of employees out for lunch, or happy hour: While informal and relaxed, such a setting can be very conducive to getting the corporate message across. In this way, the message is delivered in a stress-free environment. A manager who has the respect of the employees will, of course, be still more effective at delivering this message. Because conformity is internalized, individuals will perform the behaviors in private as well as in public, and require relatively little prompting. Behavior is more consistent, sabotage attempts relatively rare, and commitment to action should be much higher. In Chapter 6 on group cohesion, we discussed how a smart large organization will find a way to pull smaller subgroups within the organization to its side. One way to do so, you will recall, is to give these groups some determination over, for example, larger group goals or working conditions. When people feel they have a choice over their courses of action, they become more committed. In the terms in this chapter, this means that they conform, rather than comply. However, the key to real success, research finds, is for solicited input to actually be taken into account; that is, the larger organization must sincerely want the input of its subgroups. If the input of subgroups becomes a sham, if it is an ingratiation tactic that employers use rather than a democratic way of sharing power, there is no corresponding increase in commitment among group members (Gerson, 1975). Stanley Milgram's Classic Studies on Obedience Black and white photo of Nuremberg Rally with masses of people neatly ordered. The horrors of the Nazi regime during World War II lead to an abundance of research into group dynamics, especially regarding power and obedience. Social researchers wanted to understand how so many people could be complicit in such unthinkable atrocities. The Milgram experiments attempted to answer some of those questions. Stanley Milgram's (1963; 1974) famous series of experiments during the middle 1960s initially must have seemed innocuous to the largely middle-aged white male study volunteers who responded to a newspaper advertisement and came to an office in a low-rise shopping strip block in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Each subject entered to see another middle-aged man seated in a chair and a third man dressed in a white coat sitting at a desk; these two men were actually confederates, part of the experiment. Shortly thereafter, the subject was told he was participating in an experiment to assess the effects of punishment on learning; he was to be the "teacher" and administer electric shocks to one of the confederates, who would be seated in another room and strapped to an electric shock machine as the "learner." The subject was given a sample 45-volt shock so he could judge what it felt like and was told that each time the learner made a mistake, he, the "teacher," was to escalate the level of electric shock administered. At first, the learner feigned discomfort by responding to the shocks with grunts and groans. Then as the voltage was turned increasingly higher, the learner began to furiously protest: His "heart [was] bothering him" and he "want[ed] to end the experiment." At 330 volts, the monitoring apparatus turned ominously blank and silent and the learner no longer responded, as if unconscious or possibly dead. At these points nearly all the subjects paused. They asked the head of the experiment, "Mr. Williams," to check on the learner. They asked (not demanded) if the experiment could be discontinued. Mr. Williams consistently responded that the experiment must continue, but also reassured the subjects that their payment for participation was theirs to keep. Not until the subject refused to continue did the experiment conclude. In the end, most of the subjects continued escalating the shocks beyond the already dangerous level of 330 volts. Approximately two-thirds of the subjects continued until it reached 450 volts, the highest voltage possible. This particular experiment was only one of the scenarios that Stanley Milgram used in his series of studies. Milgram's first subjects were Yale undergraduates. Although a panel of psychiatrists that he consulted estimated that fewer than one percent of individuals would continue to shock simply on an unknown experimenter's request, nearly all of the study participants proceeded to shock the initially unseen and unheard victim to 450 volts. Milgram repeated the basic experiment many times, varying the amount of contact between subject and learner, the distance between subject and learner, the location of the experiment (downtown Bridgeport, CT or Yale University), and the demographic of the subjects used, including those recruited through newspaper advertisements. Obedience (or compliance) to the experimenter was most pronounced (90 percent) when the subject was a minority of one in a small group of compliant confederates. It was least likely (10 percent) if the subject had to force the learner's hand directly onto a shock plate. Business in the Real World Power Corrupts? In August of 1970, psychology professor Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment now generally known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. Using the basement of the Stanford psychology building, Zimbardo selected 24 students to serve as prisoners or as prison guards. The experiment was to last for two weeks, and as realistic a situation as possible was set up: Prisoners, dressed in appropriate clothing, were placed in cells and addressed by number rather than name; prison guards were dressed in a way that indicated their authority over the prisoners. Think about this experiment for a moment. What do you think would take place? What did Professor Zimbardo learn about how people would behave if put in these roles? What do you think those who were prisoners learned about themselves? About those who were serving as prison guards? What did the prison guards learn about how they would interact with the prisoners? Some "prisoners" quit early. Some had severe psychological reactions, while others rebelled against the guards. The guards became abusive, and as many as one-third engaged in behavior described as "sadistic." Famously, the experiment had to be halted after only six days. Here are some questions to consider: * What does the Stanford experiment say about the importance of roles in how people behave? * Why might people in a group do things they would never do as individuals? * What kind of peer pressure might be brought against other prisoners to conform? Against other prison guards to conform? * Do the results of the experiment support the results of Milgram's experiments? In what way do they confirm Milgram's results? In what way do they conflict? * What, in general, can be learned from the Stanford experiment about the dynamics of group behavior? As you reflect on this study, what lessons can you draw for business purposes? How does this inform the dynamic between employee and employer, or manager and subordinate? There are lessons to be learned from Milgram's research for both managers and employees. We see that good people can end up in situations that compel them to do otherwise unthinkable things. Such behavior stems directly from the power of the situation, as well as the power of the group, be that the people in the room or the more abstract organization that lends status to certain members. Understanding this power as a manager means that you must be mindful of the way you address your subordinates. Employees are more likely to comply with your demands by virtue of your position in the group, so you must be mindful not to abuse that influence, which, as explained above, can over time lead to resentment, diminished cohesion and productivity, and higher turnover rates. Likewise, as a manager, you can also use the knowledge gained here to foster a more conformist mentality in your employees, not constraining them with external threats but instead compelling them with internal motivation. A deeper understanding of these dynamics can lead to you gaining higher productivity from all you work with. As an employee, understanding our capacity to comply to superiors is the first step in maintaining your autonomy both as a person and as a member in a group. Being mindful of organizational contexts and the status afforded certain members helps keep you focused on the bigger picture. If you begin to feel pressure or stress at a superior's requests, it may well be the undue leveraging of power by your manager. Once this is identified, you can start formulating your own plan on how best to respond to such force. The worst thing an employee can be is uninformed or entirely unaware of how group dynamics work, and how the power of the situation can lead to behaviors that would otherwise have never been considered possible. How Conforming Are We? Individualism Versus Collectivism Americans proudly like to declare and display their individualism. Individualism is a hallmark of American culture. Both scholars and laypeople contrast the individualistic cultures of the United States, Canada, and many Western European countries with more collectivist cultures in Africa, Latin America, and many parts of Asia (Hoecklin & Payne, 1995). It is suggested that in more collectivist cultures, people more strongly identify with groups than they do in the United States, that they seek group, rather than individual, solutions to problems, and that citizens in collectivist cultures stress individual achievement somewhat less and group performance somewhat more. On paper this sounds scholastically plausible. And in some areas, such as in our ability to perceive the motives and abilities of other people and conformity (but not compliance), there do appear to be some cultural differences depending on how collectivist or individualistic the larger culture is. In China, for instance, a teacher is traditionally expected to do virtually all the talking, while in many Western cultures, teachers expect students to volunteer information to the discussion. Thus a Western teacher may find students less talkative (and, perhaps, less engaged), while a Chinese teacher may regard students who insist on raising points during a lecture rude and disrespectful. Some studies also find changes over time in the same culture (Lockette, 2006. ). Photo of a group of students taking notes in auditorium-style classroom. We conform far more often than we tend to think we do. Every time you sit down at a desk during class, for example, you are conforming to the norms of the classroom. But make no mistake about it: Whether our culture is collectivist or individualistic, all of us accept group influence, regardless of how ruggedly individualistic we may assert ourselves to be. For example, after a law is passed that requires a previously voluntary behavior, such as state laws requiring seatbelt use, that behavior increases among the U.S. general public. Early research on drinking during Prohibition as well as research during the increase and decrease of the drinking age in various American states indicates similar conformity findings. When laws, rules, and regulations are implemented, conformity is the more typical response; however, reactance, that is, the tendency of individuals to do the opposite of a of an imposed rule, also occurs. It is worth distinguishing different kinds of this reactance. "Instant reactance" is contrary behavior that arises immediately upon a rule being put forth, such as a high school student deciding to dress in a way that has just been declared in violation of the new school dress code. More worrisome is gradual reactance, where employees, over time, develop ways to resist a given rule. Perhaps a company imposes restrictions on using its computers for reading personal e-mail; employees gradually develop strategies to do precisely this. The effective manager must be aware of this kind of response to the promulgation of rules. To avoid the possibility of reactance and enhance the chances of conformity, mild and corrective, rather than coercive, enforcement of the rules is the ideal. Leonard Berkowitz (1990) has asserted that much of our daily lives consist of "unthinking behavior." Many of these unthinking everyday behaviors involve conformity. Consider: Not only do nearly all of us wear clothes in public, not only do most of us adjust our clothing to the situation, such as not wearing bathing suits in class or high heels on the beach, but we frequently wear a fashion "uniform" to blend in with other group members even when it is not required—that is, we wear what our friends and family tend to wear. If there was no dress code at your high school, you likely wore more or less what the closest members of your peer group wore. Each clique may have had slightly different styles, but each clique nonetheless had their own "uniform." Undoubtedly you were wearing one of them. Likewise, we obey traffic laws and the rules of the road, even on many occasions when we might be able to break these laws with relative impunity. For example, have you ever been the lone motorist who stopped at the intersection traffic light in the wee hours of the morning? Do you put on your turn signals even when there is not another soul or vehicle in sight? One might, in contrast to this conforming behavior, consider the reaction by some to the installation of red-light cameras at intersections. There have been reports of vandalism, various forms of public protest, petitions, lawsuits, and, of course, some have continued to run red lights. The cameras, in this sense, may be viewed by some to be a coercive tactic on the part of law enforcement, thus prompting the reactance. Photo of mom and daughter arguing in the kitchen. Measures that are seen as too coercive may prompt reactance. A teenager rebelling against a parent's strict curfew is an example. When we enter an elevator, we turn and face the front, rarely making eye contact with our fellow passengers and rarely speaking to them either, unless we know them already. We typically do this when we are alone in the elevator too. Does it occur to anyone to check out the back of the elevator when we are alone? Or to walk into a crowded elevator and face the crowd? We're all in a box, after all; the front of the box is no more appealing than the back of the box. Obviously this list could continue for quite some time. The moral is that all of us expect and want a certain degree of conformity in the social psychological sense of the term no matter how unique we assert ourselves to be. Conformity makes social life typically more predictable and pleasant. Without conformity to social regulations, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to easily interact with others, especially on a regular basis. Notwithstanding, conformity can also exert a more or less difficult price—individuals may feel stifled, discouraged and uneasy as a result. So, what, in fact, do Americans really mean when we claim to treasure nonconformity? We rarely hear friends or family declaring proudly how they broke a major law or were discourteous to fellow friends or co-workers for the sake of eschewing cultural norms. More often than not our noncomformist tendencies reside on a lower-stakes level as part of our self-expression, motivating such things as clothing, home or office decor, vehicles, and other forms of decorative items. In fact, it is interesting that many school systems, companies, and organizations, such as the military, try to regulate these expressive manifestations, for example, by mandating uniforms or dress codes, or even how students decorate their lockers. Most students or workers find subtle ways to defy these rules. A worker may decorate his or her office cubicle with a particular picture or work of art; a student may wear an accessory of some sort that goes against the school regulations. This is the way we tend to be nonconformist—in relatively smaller self-expressive ways. Related to decorative self-expression are hobbies and special interests. In fact, therapists and counselors often urge us to adopt individual hobbies or special interests to boost our mental health, possibly because to do so is to declare our uniqueness. Thus, we create, or join, clubs and interest groups, from Trekkies to dog clubs to volunteer organizations. We play an instrument, refinish furniture, visit favorite websites, watch certain television stations, or run ultra-marathons. These relatively small deviations from the average, like other forms of self-expression, assert our individuality but leave conformity to most group norms largely untouched. The same is true of political opinions. Deviant political opinions, as long as they are not too deviant, have a long tradition of American respect. For example, despite criticism from Democrats who feared splitting the vote, many social and political liberals vocally supported third and minor parties, such as the Green Party, during the 2000 presidential election. In both the United States and in Western Europe, there are a plethora of specialized political parties. We may subscribe to alternative newspapers or create or join political groups, such as the Tea Party, that are consistent with our own views. If, however, political opinions and behavior appear to violate cultural norms, for example, American neo-Nazis, they may become seen as signs of deviance rather than healthy self-expression. 7.3 Which Factors Increase Group Influence? Expert Knowledge Dr. Brian Cook and Dr. Robert Reich discuss how expertise affects power within bureaucracies. Many of the same factors that increase group cohesion can also increase the influence that a group can exercise. However, it is important to remember that groups you don't belong to, such as reference groups, may still have an influence. Most of are familiar with reference groups, such as the Fraternal Order of Police, various labor unions such as the Teamsters and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as various guilds for musicians and actors; even college professors may belong to a union that represents their interests. Both the research literature on reference groups and that on social comparison processes remind us that collectivities can affect us even when we are not members. Indeed, political scientists know that special interest groups frequently shape not only politician behaviors but attitudes among the general American public. For example, American general public attitudes among Whites and men changed significantly between the 1960s and 1980s. They became more inclusive due in part to the activism of Black Civil Rights groups and feminists who stressed cognitive elements addressing stereotypes, issues of legitimacy, and fairness values, and presented attractive referent figures, such as Bill Cosby and Gloria Steinem. Ashley Plant's recent work (2009) suggests that the presidential election of Barack Obama has had, or assuredly will have, some similar effects. The election of an African American president—and the earlier appointment of Colin Powell as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then Secretary of State—had a "normalizing" effect on much of the public. While hardly a unanimous response, most Americans came to see various members of traditional minority groups participating at all levels of American society, including the highest levels of American politics. Such inclusion came to make such results seem less and less remarkable. However, the groups you belong to typically have greater influence over you, because normative influence is added to informational influence. Typically primary groups, with their more intense, direct interpersonal interaction, affect us more than secondary or tertiary groups. Resources Resources that a group has to offer increase that group's influence over its membership. Except for punishments, most of these resources affect internal conformity rather than externally imposed compliance. The results of French and Raven's (1959) classic typology is still very much cited today. This section works to detail what they found. Expertise, or expert power, increases conformity. Members conform because an individual in the group appears to have special knowledge. For example, a marketing team may have a member who has written award-winning commercials. Other members of that team may follow this member's lead, seeking to gain similar success by conforming to various patterns they may identify. In addition, a newly hired employee who has enjoyed success elsewhere may introduce new kinds of approaches that, again seeking to be successful themselves, other members may regard as good standards to which to conform. Headshot of Heidi Klum. Attractiveness is a resources that a group can utilize. We see examples of this whenever a company chooses a beautiful model, actor, or sports star to be its spokesperson. Similar to expertise, reference groups can also elicit conformist behavior. This means that ideas are communicated in such a way as to compel adherence to a group's goals or values. Individuals with more expertise or informational power, or who occupy social roles high in legitimate power hold greater credibility. Their decisions appear more rational, fair, and justified and are less likely to be questioned or foment rebellion. A group leader or member, for example, may be able to explain documents or practices to the group in a way that makes sense to members and thus influences their behavior. Primary groups also have the capacity to exert coercive power more easily. They have the power to set rewards or punishments that can dictate the behavior of its members. As we saw in our earlier discussions of teams, the more unified a team is, the greater respect each member of the team will have for the other members. In this case, then, criticism from a fellow team member can carry much more weight than such criticism from another source might receive. A manager may challenge, in a general way, an accountant's books; but if another member of the accounting group offers a similar criticism, it may not only be more informed in terms of the specific accounting details, it is likely to be given more careful consideration due to both that specificity and its source. Attractiveness, or referent power, is also a resource that a group can utilize. Herbert Kelman (1961) reported a process similar to referent power that he called identification. Referent individuals can be so attractive that others want to emulate them and will more readily accept influence from them. We are probably most familiar with this phenomenon when we see movie stars, famous musicians, or outstanding athletes in advertisements or commercials to sell a product. Similar others are also often used as role models or to illustrate particular behaviors, as when a master teacher explains a lesson or an exceptional salesperson demonstrates a sales technique. In business an individual might be attracted to a company due to the dynamism of its CEO, or perhaps an entrepreneur is gearing up for a new venture. The reference power held by this person may be enough to compel others to conform to his or her vision. Legitimate power or legitimate authority is yet another resource at the disposal of a group. Legitimate power is nearly always positional, residing in a social role and a social system that delegates authority to that role, such as a monarch or a president. Recall that by virtue of the social roles that they occupy, particular individuals have the right to demand certain behavior. For example, your doctor may ask you to remove your clothes in an examining room. A police officer may have you pull over your car, or your boss may ask you to stay late to do more cold calls to drum up clients. We tend to comply with legitimate authority exercised in the appropriate way; we would think it quite odd, in contrast, were our doctor to try and write us a ticket or a police officer ask us to make some sales calls. As with attraction, higher status or prestige also makes a group more influential. Such status confers upon the group a certain authority that members or potential recruits may find attractive. Therefore, these members are more likely to conform with the objectives set by this group. For example, an employee may agree willingly to work late during the week if he or she feels that the group's status is at such a level that the prestige is worth the effort, whereas if the group's status is markedly lower, or even simply perceived to be lower, then conformity by the same employee may be harder to gain. The Case of Legitimate Authority Clearly a particularly important resource is whether the group or referent figure is viewed as a legitimate authority, embodying the norms of a society or culture. Legitimate authorities receive their power from social mandates, such as elected officials or the "divine right of kings." They may have some type of skill, perhaps represented by an advanced degree, or because they represent an institution seen as important in that particular culture, such as a pastor of a religious denomination or a National Science Foundation scientist. Gaining legitimacy can be difficult, and once gained, it is not a static phenomenon. Cultural battles constantly occur over whether a group, a company, a nonprofit organization, or an authority figure is legitimate. For example, battles occur in medicine about alternative medicine or pharmaceuticals. Battles occur in scholarly fields over dominant paradigms on a regular basis and American public school boards debate over the representation of women and ethnic minorities in textbooks and library resources. Trusted manufacturers' popular products may be suddenly subjected to recall and the company may fall under suspicion, as Toyota and Johnson & Johnson both did in 2010 and 2011. Photo of graduating class. Getting your college degree is a way of gaining legitimacy, and thus power, in the workplace. Legitimacy will depend in part on the situation. Jurors with prior jury experience are more often chosen or elected jury foreperson. Faculty who head national professional associations more often become department heads or chairs. Members of youth gangs who have proven their toughness more often become gang leaders. This is where the expectancy states concepts introduced in Chapter 3 of diffuse versus specific status characteristics become especially helpful because they tell us which characteristics are more likely to become salient in a particular situation or group. For example, we would expect industry experience (but generally not marital experience) to be important to a company. An investment company may well benefit from an employee's experience trading on the stock exchange; the fact that same employee was a celebrated mountain climber would seem to be irrelevant (beyond noting the courage it might take to invest in the stock market). Gaining legitimacy is important because we more often trust groups and authority figures viewed as legitimate. For example, most people would be more likely to manage their health using information from the American Diabetes Association than a clerk at a health food store. Peer-reviewed journals are a more reliable source of disciplinary information than newspapers or the popular magazines at grocery store checkout counters. The rather volatile nature of legitimacy should serve as a remainder to anyone in the business world. A deeper understanding that hierarchies collapse, that statuses shift, and that very little in the social order is static can serve to stave off complacency for workers on all levels, in all positions. Legitimacy, and the authority that comes with it, is in many ways assigned by the members of a group; it can just as easily be taken away. Indeed, some companies have experienced substantial problems when losing a single employee with unique knowledge or talent—perhaps a close personal relationship with an important client, or technical knowledge no one else possesses. Such employees may be "irreplaceable," but a company that only finds this out after the employee is gone makes a painful discovery. Other Important Factors in Group Influence There are other factors that become significant for group influence and stem from the group situation itself rather than from the special characteristics of group members or leaders. A larger group that's nearly unanimous in sentiment aside from one member exerts more influence. Solomon Asch did his classic study (1951). Participants were asked which of three lines matched an original stimulus line. The lines were easy to tell apart and when making judgments in private, individuals almost never made mistakes. However, placed in a room with six confederates who were purposefully collaborating to all declare the wrong answer and where each person announced his or her decision aloud, over one-third of the participants' answers conformed to those of the majority—in other words, one-third of the participants gave answer they knew to be incorrect just to conform to the group. It is important to note, however, that even one dissenting member lessens the pressure on a group member giving a "deviant" answer to conform or comply (Packer & Chasteen, 2010). It's most difficult to be the first to dissent, and dissenting gets progressively easier with each person that does. Large majorities are influential up to a point; for example, Asch's research found that influence did not grow linearly with the size of the majority and did not, in fact, increase much past a majority-minority split of 7–1. Further, unwavering or competent minorities can also have considerable group influence (Asch, 1951; see also Latané, 1981). The ambiguity of the situation influences the power a group exerts. Accepting group influence occurs more often in ambiguous situations. For example, although people "conformed" at one point or another on all of the critical Asch trials, conforming occurred more often when the size of the lines to be judged were more similar to one another. Consider a group of stockholders voting to approve the merger of their company with another. The vast majority of the stockholders are in favor of the merger, in spite of some cogent objections by a small minority of stockholders. While all share the same ultimate goal, the influence the majority has over the group may tend to overwhelm these objections, no matter how clearly they are stated and argued for. How visible the actions of the individual is in relation to the group also affects the dynamic. A group member is more likely to accept influence from the group when that member's behavior is public, can be easily monitored, or can be placed under surveillance (Insko, Smith, Alicke, Wade, & Taylor, 1985; Tyson & Kaplowitz, 1977). This speaks to keeping employees personally accountable for their actions. This can be seen in both positive and negative ways. For example, if an employee knows that hard work will be acknowledged and publicly lauded, that employee may be more willing to conform to group objectives, may try harder to achieve. On the other hand, this same employee may be less apt to take risks if the same public viewing would be administered for bad performance. The negotiation of public versus private in business environments is always a complex matter. Proximity of the source of influence to the individual directly affects conformity. The more proximate the source, the more likely the individual is to accept influence. This may be especially true for compliance behavior. In one of the several experimental variations on the obedience experiment described earlier, Milgram found that the greater the distance between the supposed experimenter and the "naïve teacher," the more likely the teacher was to discontinue the experiment. The role of the member's status in the group is unclear and more disentanglement is needed of the factors involved. Some individuals have low status in the group precisely because they do not conform; they may still be members because they cannot be expelled for one reason or another. In addition, group leaders often set, rather than follow, policy. On the other hand, studies of children's leadership behavior have repeatedly found that children who emerged as group leaders were very conforming when they first joined a group, only introducing leadership innovations once they were solidly accepted as members (Mérei, 1980). Finally, situations that lower group members' sense of self-esteem or self-efficacy induce more acceptance of group influence. Examples of these situations include those that are ambiguous, contain difficult or unfamiliar tasks, and groups totally composed of strangers rather than intact groups. A boss may give her workers instructions that are confusing to those tasked with carrying them out; regardless of how earnest the workers are, it may not even be clear from the instructions what is required to meet the boss's goals. Similarly, a manager may have familiarity with a certain task that requires applying a range of skills to accomplish; but the manager should be wary of assuming that others being asked to do this share the same skills as the manager. One might also consider a meeting of a number of high-level managers from a large company; these managers are used to corresponding by e-mail or talking on the phone. A face-to-face meeting may introduce complications—one might consider this "friction"—that can interfere with the group working as smoothly as might be hoped. A good manager will be aware of such potential problems, and develop strategies to minimize them. 7.4 Interpersonal Exertion of Power Within Groups It's not enough to demonstrate that groups influence their members. For practical significance, we need a better idea on how exactly influence is exerted amid the social factors that make others more likely to accept it. Groups use a variety of interpersonal tactics to exert influence. These attempts may be direct, such as when a military superior gives an order to a soldier or your boss makes a direct request to you. They may be indirect, such as using flattery. For example, a boss may tell an employee, "You're the only one I know that can complete a project this complex," or use other forms of manipulation. Such influence can take a wide range of forms, from a sheer expression of power all the way to the most subtle suggestion that isn't even noticed by the person being influenced. We may be familiar with a wide range of such kinds of influence from our own personal relationships (try and remember how you were persuaded to go to the ballet or a football game). Such techniques are certainly available in the workplace, as well. More personal actions that people undertake when they seek to persuade group members include bullying, such as threatening some sort of retribution if the member does not comply or criticizing an employee's previous work. Some individuals seeking to exert influence may even lie to get their way. More positive tactics include ingratiation or negotiation. (See Jones, 1964, for what amounts to a manual backed by experimental evidence.) Members may be more willing to accept influence in groups because of diffusion of responsibility (Darley & Latané, 1968). People tend to feel less responsible for outcomes when they are in a group than when they are alone. Thus, if a particularly risky manufacturing process is approved by a committee, its members will tend to feel less responsible for its failure than if a single individual agreed to it. It is important to note, however, that diffusion of responsibility is more likely to occur in groups of strangers. Under these circumstances, members may feel anonymous and deindividuated, and feel less responsible for their decisions and behaviors. Groups also rarely make huge initial demands on their members, unless the member is expressly identified as carrying disproportionate responsibility (a quarterback or starting pitcher, the director of a film, the head of a SWAT team, for instance). To do so, after all, would probably scare away new recruits, particularly if the individual has a high comparison level (CL) for attractive alternatives. A more typical tactic is the foot-in-the-door technique, which means asking for something smaller and then gradually increasing the scope of the request after gaining initial consent from the person. In the original study (Freedman & Frasier, 1966), researchers asked households to place a small sign in their window. Those who did so were more apt to agree to place a large, ugly sign on their front yard later on. Thus groups may begin by making relatively minor demands on their members, and then escalate their requests after the individual has filled the early requested actions. This results from the individual showing that he or she is capable of meeting more demanding requests, and the group, having seen earlier performance standards, is willing to make such requests. However, belonging to a group lends another dimension to exerting influence. It implies that sets of individuals can coordinate their actions in scripts and sequences to make influence attempts. First, as we know, group members can occupy social roles that give them the legitimate right, recognized as proper and justified by the larger collectivity, to exert influence. For example, most people agree that bosses have the power to hire and fire. Even in unionized workplaces bosses retain this power, although they may have to follow contractual steps in the process of doing either one. People in groups can form coalitions or clusters with other members. Coalitions often empower their members, shielding them from majority influence and increasing the possibilities of minority influence (Latané, 1981). As we learned in the Asch studies, even individuals who are in a minority coalition of two or three can provide social support to one another and thus can begin to influence the group majority. A particular group can bestow rewards or enact punishments in order to exert influence. Isolation and expulsion are powerful disincentives in attractive or cohesive groups. Recall, too, that research indicates that members of cohesive groups are more apt to use negative inducements such as ridicule, scapegoating, or isolating deviant members than less cohesive groups do. On the positive side, groups may socialize recruits or resocialize members through initiation or probationary periods, direct instruction, or the use of powerful or attractive models. Recruits and members may identify with powerful and more frequently learn or perform behaviors the group finds desirable. Groups that establish power hierarchies may become devoted to them and develop tactics to preserve group structure. Examples include installing surveillance mechanisms, which can range from rewarding snitches or gossips to monitoring an employee's computer usage or installing cameras and other equipment in offices. Groups may enact formal power mechanisms, such as the use of superior-subordinate role asymmetries in first names or touching, or social distance, such as standing. Even a work group that purports to be friendly and informal may insist on a formal chain of command with centralized communication structures. 7.5 Can Power Really Corrupt? Remember Isabella in Chapter 2? After once-popular Isabella was promoted, she seemed to change considerably toward her prior teammates. She appeared to become chilly and distant. Former co-workers began to complain that Isabella took too much credit for her contributions to group tasks and gave others too little credit. Unfortunately, Isabella's metamorphosis is far from unusual. Research indicates that even if an experimenter assigns someone to a leadership position, regardless of his or her actual accomplishments, their behavior begins to change. This chapter has emphasized power and the exertion of influence more as a positional than a personal phenomenon. But research has found that occupying a position of power affects its occupants. One need only open the business pages of a newspaper to discover examples of this, whether the unassuming middle-manager becoming ruthlessly competitive or the fiscally conservative investor becoming CEO of a corporation that defrauds its stockholders. Some examples have even become household names: Enron, AIG, Bernard Madoff, and Lehman Brothers, to mention just a few. This occurs even when experimental participants are randomly assigned to a power or a leadership position. Individuals assigned to leadership positions, including central positions in communication structures, begin to act like common stereotypes of "leaders." They issue more direct orders and make more requests (Hals, Hogg, & Duck, 1997). They use direct, rather than indirect, forms of influence. Photo of Bernie Madoff. Bernie Madoff is an example of how power can corrupt. And of course, at least some subordinates begin to behave differently toward either leaders or persons in power than they do with peers. They flatter leaders, defer to them, use more indirect means of influence attempts, and generally behave quite pleasantly toward them. While leaders bask in this positive attention, subordinates typically avoid conveying negative information, fearing to become the messenger of the bad news or expressing critical feelings. The relationship of subordinates to status superiors has been characterized as ambivalent, with subordinates harboring feelings of admiration, emulation, envy, resentment, and reactance (Homans, 1974). Unfortunately as we know from the Groupthink research literature (Chapter 6) this asymmetry in information flow means that leaders often fail to receive badly needed information that is critical of enterprise's proposed decisions because subordinates are focused on flattery and deference. This is something leaders, regardless of the organization, need to be mindful of. In contrast, the feelings of those in power are far less complex. They come to feel superior, even if it was random assignment that placed them in any kind of influential position. Those placed in leadership positions tend to * place distance between themselves and subordinates * credit themselves for the good performance of their subordinates * downplay the worth of their subordinates, and * give themselves inflated evaluations. These findings (Schein, 2004) lend support to the adage "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Although some of these changes may occur, of course, because of the way subordinates behave toward these individuals, authorities in the chain of command above may also flatter the new leader, because they want loyalty in their subordinates. As we have seen, repeatedly, organizations and the subgroups that make up those organizations are complex. These complexities, such as relationships between the boss and his or her employees, and the relationships among all the workers themselves, require careful attention being paid to what contributes to corporate unity, as well as what detracts from that unity. Recognizing power differentials is important, but it is also important that all employees feel respected and part of the "team." The manager who fails to ensure this may fail to develop an efficient, productive, and profitable workplace. Expertise must be recognized and utilized, but dissent and criticism are also important components in improving any organization. At the same time, violating rules, dissent that becomes simple deviance from the organization's standards, and resisting strategies in place for developing the organization can also interfere with it achieving its goals. Keeping in mind the challenges and opportunities that these, and other, factors give rise to requires a delicate balancing act. Summary Groups exert power and influence over members. Members may conform or comply with the group or authority figures. Compliance with the demands of authority tends to be high, as illustrated by Milgram's famous obedience experiment. Groups with resources and legitimacy are more likely to influence the individual. Specific interpersonal strategies for group influence are both indirect and direct and involve situations that include diffusion of responsibility, the foot-in-the-door technique, deindividuation, coalitions, and rewards and punishments. Power does corrupt sometimes but it often has an impact on the individual who holds the power. What Did We Discover? * Groups can tend toward conformity for many reasons; this conformity has both its advantages and disadvantages * Milgram's experiments help clarify and explain why people will behave in ways they themselves may find deplorable * Power can take many forms, from coercion and force to manipulation and subtle suggestion * Dissent and criticism can be important tools for improving an organization, but dissent can also turn into destructive deviance Business Application Exercises 1. Given Stanley Milgram's experiments, why do you think people were willing to inflict what might well be regarded as an intolerable amount of pain on others? As a manager, how can apply the lessons of the Milgram experiment to your workplace relations with subordinates—and superiors? 2. Identify some of the different ways you have seen people assert power in organizations. Which of those ways were most productive? Which were least productive? What do you think made the difference between these assertions of power? 3. Why do you think some corporations may tend not to reward criticism, no matter how accurate or helpful that criticism may be? 4. Have you ever been in a group where you knew no other members of that group? What did you do to fit in better? What did the other members of the group do to make you feel included in the group? What would be your approach to integrating new hires into a company? Would you be hands-off? Would you implement a plan of some sort? If so, what would it entail? Key Terms coalitions compliance confederates conformity deindividuated diffusion of responsibility foot-in-the-door technique gradual reactance influence legitimate authority norms power primary groups reactance reference groups referent power Related Web Links Collectivism Versus Individualism http://internationalbusiness.wikia.com/wiki/South_Africa_Collectivism_vs._Individualism Red Light Backlash http://abcnews.go.com/US/red-light-camera-backlash-cameras-causing-accidents/story?id=13925887 Power in the Workplace http://blog.emergenceconsulting.net/2007/07/power-in-the-wo.html Fostering a Corporate Culture of Ideas http://blog.emergenceconsulting.net/2007/07/power-in-the-wo.html Coping with Workplace Critics http://artpetty.com/2011/04/04/leadership-caffeine-coping-with-workplace-critics/ Organizational Culture http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/strat-ldr-dm/pt4ch16.html Criticism: Constructive and Otherwise http://projectsteps.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-project-management-criticism-is.html Solomon Asch Conformity Experiments http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html Stanford Prison Experiment http://www.prisonexp.org/ http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm