For A-Plus Writer

05ch_losh_behavior.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >For A-Plus Writer

Attraction to Groups

Learning Objectives

What We Will Be Investigating • What makes a group work most efficiently? • What techniques are available to make group members feel more as if they are part of the team?

• How can managers avoid making members of an organization feel excluded? • What are the challenges of measuring how cohesive a group really is?

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 91 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Introduction

Chapter Outline

“If you give people tools, [and they use] their natural ability and their curiosity, they will

develop things in ways that will surprise you very much beyond what you might have expected.”

—Bill Gates

Businesses, teams, nonprofits, and many other organizations are built around groups. The success of these organizations often depends on how well groups within the organization function in order to be more productive and efficient, as well as to be more satisfying to the members who belong to the organization.

In this chapter, we explore some of the dynamics of how people work together, in order to see what factors are involved in increasing the effectiveness of groups. We will also look at some of the challenges organizations encounter, and consider some possible responses to those challenges in order to avoid them or at least to minimize the potential risks they may pose.

Sit down for a minute and consider all the various groups that you belong to. Now think back to how and why you joined each of these groups. Recall from Chapter 3 that some groups, such as your family, are ascriptive, which means you were born or adopted into that group. You may have joined other groups when you were young because your fam- ily belonged to them, such as a particular religious congregation. You may still belong to that house of worship, or perhaps you have joined a new congregation or even converted to a different faith. You probably had little choice about which high school you attended, although you may have voluntarily joined clubs there, such as choir or future engineers.

As you grew older, your choices about your membership groups and aspiring member- ship groups increased, as did the number of possible available groups. Even during high school you had preferences about your friends, school clubs, or a romantic partner. You had considerably more latitude about picking the college you attend than you did about your high school. You chose your college major. And even when economic times are tough, you have some options about employment. You’ve probably added new friends, different romantic partners, and college activities. You also may belong to a professional association, a neighborhood crime-watch group, or a hobby club. Although virtually all of us belong to groups, how many and which groups we belong to can show individual differences as well as differences by our social location.

5.1 Factors of Attraction Personality Gender Similarity Other Factors

5.2 Exchange Theories

5.3 Entering, Maintaining, and Leaving Groups

5.4 Creating Productive Groups: An Introduction to Group Cohesion What Is Group Cohesion? How Do We Measure Group Cohesion?

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 92 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.1 Factors of Attraction

5.1 Factors of Attraction Individuals join groups for many reasons, some of which bear surprisingly little surface relationship to the ostensible rationale for the group’s existence. One might think, for example, that adult parishioners join a particular religious congregation after consider- able thought because its doctrine, theology, or liturgy are consistent with the parishio- ner’s own, or perhaps because the individual finds the services spiritually uplifting. Yet research has found that of there are other popular reasons to join a specific congregation, including

• Location. Place of worship is convenient to the parishioner’s home. • Belonging. The parishioner’s close friends or neighbors belong to that congregation

and/or it is a great way to become part of the community. • Inspiration. The preacher delivers really rousing sermons—you don’t fall asleep

during this pastor’s sermons! • Loyalty. The parishioner grew up in this denomination or even this congregation. • Economic. This congregation will help the parishioner grow a local real estate or

catering business.

Similarly, a young manager may join a civic business group for several reasons that have little to do with her or his job or with forging business connections:

• It’s a great place to meet potential romantic partners. • The appetizers are consistently delicious. • The young manager lives alone and hates going home to an empty apartment. • Some of his or her best friends from college belong. • The group recruiter made a special effort to sign up the manager. • The first-year membership fees are so low that (especially when the food is consid-

ered) it’s practically free!

Situation-specific variations on these reasons (e.g., convenient to work or to a bus/sub- way line) can also help explain the neighborhoods we choose, the jobs we take, or the clubs we join.

As you can see, what makes a particular group appealing to a specific potential member is not always immediately obvious. Attractive features, described in more detail below, can relate to personality, gender, power and prestige, propinquity, the group’s unconditional acceptance of a recruit, mere exposure, and similarity.

Personality

The negotiation of a personality-oriented perspective versus a situational perspective emerges frequently in the study of group processes. Which perspective you choose to believe can determine how you will approach any particular group dynamics topic. For example, if you take a personality perspective, you might favor individual assertiveness training to bring shy individuals out of their shell and make them more social, perhaps even assuming leadership positions. If you take a situational approach you might try to help your shy members increase their interpersonal interactions by altering aspects of group interaction, or even redesigning your physical work or living spaces. For example,

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 93 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.1 Factors of Attraction

comfortable sofas, a small refrigerator, and a cof- fee machine in an employee lounge can invite workers to cluster there.

Most of the time when we study group processes, we address the social aspects, such as specific roles or conformity. However, at times individual differences or personality variables appear rel- evant to joining or playing roles in a group. Lead- ership, of course, is one obvious example in both the research literature and in popular stereotypes; we take a thorough look at leadership in Chap- ter 9. Another issue where personality traits may be relevant is why we join groups, the kinds of groups we join, and how many groups we join.

What do we know about personality character- istics that could affect group processes? Many taxonomies of personality describes an intro- version-extroversion dimension, or a “moving toward” people versus a “moving away” orien- tation. Scholars such as Jerome Kagan (Kagan, 2004; Rimm-Kaufman & Kagan, 2005) believe that qualities such extroversion are basic, biologically influenced individual traits. The general theory goes that individuals with relatively high inter- nal levels of neural stimulation (introverts) seek quieter surroundings to dampen down neural excitement to an optimal level, while those with relatively low internal levels of neural stimula- tion (extroverts) seek more exciting surroundings in order to maintain a comfortable internal equi- librium of neural stimulation. This, of course, is a predilection only; Kagan points out it is not even close to “biology is destiny.” Recent research indi- cates that whatever we wish to call these relatively constant methods of acting upon and responding to one’s environment, they can be recognizably stable for decades.

Recall from the discussion of social facilitation (Chapter 1) that the mere presence of other people can be physically arousing. Thus extroverts may seek out others to raise their levels of arousal. For

extroverts, the mere presence of others can be stimulating and rewarding, so extroverts can grow to relish life in groups. For introverts, however, the increased arousal levels created by the presence of others is undesirable. Thus, among introverts the presence of others may become associated with discomfort and a desire for solitude, making them more likely to avoid group situations. Introverts enjoy time without the distraction of others. Their best

Negotiating and handling different personality types is an important part of any manager’s job.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 94 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.1 Factors of Attraction

work may come when they are able to work alone. Introversion-extroversion is one of these trait constellations that is remarkably consistent, although introverts do become somewhat more sociable over the lifespan and extroverts become somewhat more subdued.

One of your responsibilities as a group leader or facilitator will be to guide members with introversion and extroversion tendencies. You will need to recognize these traits in your members and work to establish and maintain group productivity and cohesiveness as these personalities interact and sometimes clash.

Techniques to deal with some of the personal tendencies you might find in a group can be simple. Philip Zimbardo (1999) conducted research about shyness with young chil- dren at school. His method of overcoming shyness and encouraging these children to become more sociable has been to drape simple brown lunch bags over their heads, with holes cuts for eyes, nose, and mouth. Apparently, despite what would seem to be the conspicuousness of brown bags for heads, hiding one’s face makes timid youngsters less self-conscious and more outgoing.

Obviously the type of experience one has had in groups counts too. People who have gen- erally had supportive, positive group experiences in the past will seek similar situations more often. The kind of group may vary as well. Some people are drawn to task-oriented groups while others join groups that appear to support socioemotional needs.

Our location in the social system or life cycle stage often determines the attractiveness of a particular group. Someone active in the business world may join a civic group, such as the local chamber of commerce, to generate a network of professional contacts. A young par- ent may want assistance or social support from a “mothers’ morning out” club. Teenagers look to their peers to provide information—and possible mates. Retirees may sign up to volunteer at local organizations or charities.

Within the world of work, individuals are first attracted to the group because of personal goals or because the group solicited the help of the individual in order to accomplish group goals. The individual works overtime to meet personal and group goals. When those goals

Business in the Real World Dress for Success

Many companies expect their employees to dress in a certain way. Of course, the nature of the work will deter- mine this to some extent: A coal miner is not likely to wear a coat and tie into the mine. Standard office dress generally is considered to be business suits, dress shirts, and ties for men and skirted suits or tailored pantsuits for women. The uniformity of dress reduces distractions and helps employees identify with each other.

Some companies have also instituted a “casual” day—often Fridays—as a way of improving worker morale, and can also help with the cohesiveness of the group. Imagine the employees of Company X going to lunch on “casual Friday” wearing blue jeans and Hawaiian shirts. They may well see employees from Company Y in business suits; this allows the employees from Company X another opportunity to see their group as a cohesive unit, and also helps identify those (the employees of Company Y) who are excluded from that unit. In this way, both kinds of dress codes can help generate group cohesion and increase organizational unity.

What advantages do you see from a company having a “casual Friday”? What disadvantages might arise?

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 95 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.1 Factors of Attraction

are accomplished or when it becomes evident to the individual that the group no longer holds the same attractiveness, a breakdown or disintegration of the individual’s relation- ship with the group may occur. This is something that you must always remember as a group member or as a group leader.

Gender

Although sex differences have been reported in some of the group dynamics research lit- erature, one social source of gender disparities that becomes immediately apparent upon reflection is life cycle issues. More women than men tend full-time to domestic labor, including childcare. More men than women are found at the top of business and pro- fessional echelons. Increasingly, retirees are disproportionately females, who live alone, because of current sex differences in life span longevity (see, e.g., Austad, 2011).

Thus, at least part of the greater propensity some researchers find for women to join more “informal and intimate groups” (Maccoby, 1990; Tiger, 2005) is their location in social structures and roles that make the “informal trading” of information and social support more likely—for example, as young mothers or elderly widows. Since men in their middle years are more likely than women to be engaged full-time in the economic marketplace, men more often join structured groups such as professional associations or business clubs. Finally, remember that nature and society may block membership in certain groups by gen- der. Almost all members of Lamaze breastfeeding classes are female, for obvious reasons. Some business groups still exclude women from membership or use unwritten sanctions to make women uncomfortable in largely male groups, so they neither join nor attend. Often such arrangements are informal; a group of businessmen may conduct important discussions while golfing at an all-male golf club, or may interact after taking part in an activity that is clearly exclu- sive, whether a night out at a “gentleman’s club” or play- ing in a men’s softball league. The question then becomes whether these discussions function as carrying out an organization’s business, and what problems might emerge from this exclusivity.

Similarity

Similarity is the number one factor fostering attraction to a group (Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008) . Similarity can take several forms. It can be based on demographics or

The exclusion of women from workplace environments may often be subtle—perhaps woven into prior cultural norms among men rather than a conscious, formal plan. A typical golf outing among male colleagues may be one such cultural factor that works to make women feel like outsiders in their own company.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 96 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.1 Factors of Attraction

one’s stage in the life cycle (e.g., young mothers). The group may appeal to members of a par- ticular age group, educational type (e.g., college graduates) or occupation (e.g., attorneys).

Recall from Stanley Schacter’s research described in Chapter 4 that similarity also can be based on specific circumstances, such as waiting for a strong versus a mild electric shock as part of an experiment. The “American abroad” phenomenon refers to the presumed similarity upon meeting another person from the United States while visiting a different country, particularly if the second individual is from the same state or city. Because the two individuals are in a place foreign to them, they form a group due to the relative similarity they share in nationality. Yet they may be different in every other way and would not form a group at all in any other context. Similarity can also occur on values and attitudes, such as politics or consumer goals, and the group may be seen as one avenue to express these.

Why is similarity so important? First, similarity is comfortable. We find it easier to imme- diately start a conversation with similar others, because we believe we will have inter- ests and conversational topics in common. The behavior of similar others appears more predictable, thus lulling our initial social anxieties. Similar others may be able to give us useful advice that is based on relevant circumstances or dilemmas. Thus, to interact with similar others can be intrinsically rewarding.

Many group dynamicists go further. Recall that Leon Festinger’s theory of social com- parison is now over 50 years old (it appeared in Human Relations in 1954). Festinger and his contemporaries took a highly cognitive approach to group processes, believing that similar others were more informative for us than dissimilar others. Similar others tell us what is reasonable to expect, how well we are performing compared with our peers, and help us feel less embarrassed about anxiety-provoking situations. A company may, for example, have a number of employees who went to the same university; this similar- ity may make these employees feel more comfortable, and each employee thus has oth- ers with whom he or she can discuss various work-related issues. The increased comfort level, based on this similarity, may provide these employees with information they regard as reliable, and offers an environment where this kind of communication becomes more frequent. Having access, then, to those who are similar can often make the work environ- ment more comfortable and, consequently, more productive.

The notion that group membership can be rewarding for us spurred the development of several exchange theories. Rewards for group membership can stem from the benefits individuals receive. However, we also can invest considerable time, energy, money, and other resources in groups, thereby incurring personal costs. Further, groups differ in terms of how much they reward individuals and in what kind of rewards they bestow. Groups that appear to become too costly ultimately may lose members or have trouble attracting new recruits.

For instance, a woman may be offered a very lucrative partnership in a well-known law firm. The rewards are significant: In addition to the obvious financial gains involved, she will also receive increased access to important and influential members of her profes- sion, and the position brings with it considerable prestige. At the same time, the position requires extensive travel, requiring her often to be away from her family. Here, she may well regard the rewards of this position as not being sufficient to outweigh the costs of being away from her young children.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 97 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Exchange Theories

Correctly assessing the costliness of group membership is a very important business and group application. As you return to the workplace or group participation it is important to make sure that your group or organization attracts and not repels current and potential mem- bers. Managers must develop techniques to achieve this very important strategic initiative.

Other Factors

The potential membership group may offer the new member tangible or intangible rewards or an ability to meet goals that coincide with the individual’s own values and standards. For example, joining a particular civic organization may help the new mem- ber’s real estate business by providing a ready—and renewable—source of customers. For many people, the prestige or power of the group can be a very important resource. The formal versus informal dimension of groups can become important here because formal groups may be able to provide greater tangible rewards and more prestige to members more thoroughly and readily than informal groups can. While such intangible benefits may be difficult to quantify, or to put a price tag on, they can clearly be very significant. Access to those who can help one advance in his or her career, via networking, is such an intangible but extremely valuable benefit. Public recognition within the organization or in the larger community, the personal satisfaction one gains by taking on challenges and meeting them, and developing a more broadly based and more widely applied set of skills within one’s profession can all be regarded as such intangible rewards. In some circumstances, these intangible benefits can be as important to an individual as the more traditional and quantifiable rewards a position offers.

Another engaging feature of a group can be its acceptance of the individual as a new member, that is, other people in the group find the member personally attractive and freely express their feelings. The group may engage in active recruitment. Often active recruitment occurs because members are people the individual already knows. For exam- ple a cult might express unconditional approval for the individual and offer an effusive welcome with the hope of recruiting that individual to be part of the cult.

Very often we interact continuously with the same people who live or work nearby; thus propinquity and familiarity can make a group desirable. Although these features could be a matter of convenience, they need not be. We know from Robert Zajonc’s research (1968), among others, about the positive effects of repeated mere exposure research that, other things being equal, means the more we are exposed to something and the more familiar it is, the more we like it.

5.2 Exchange Theories When contemplating an expensive purchase, such as a house or a car, individuals often engage in a cost-benefit analysis; if the total expenditure appears to exceed the rewards they expect the acquisition to provide, they may consequently either fail to buy that item or reformulate their wants. A business may decide against hiring new employees if it believes these workers will not create sufficient new business to justify their cost. This is commonly known as a return on investment (ROI) in business circles. CEOs, boards of

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 98 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Exchange Theories

directors, and managers carefully track the ROI of strategies, acquisitions, and human resources. As a group member, consider how you and others in the group enhance the investment that the group or organization is making. Similarly, there often is a tangible or psychological benefit for the person wanting to join the group. Social psychologists have proposed that similar processes may occur when someone considers entering a new group or creating a new relationship. Individuals weigh the costs of joining a group and participating in its activities against the rewards they anticipate receiving in return.

The rewards of joining a group or beginning a relationship are diverse and can consist of:

• Group resources can include, among many other things, the feelings of self-satisfaction that the status and prestige of membership can bestow.

• Socioemotional benefits include the alleviation of loneliness through group interac- tion, a sense of belonging, and contributions to one’s social or collective identity.

• Rewards can also be more tangible, such as access to Internet technology at a good university or higher interest rates on savings at a particular bank.

• Advancement goals may be more easily achieved in a group than individually, such as the opportunity to work with exceptional students or pay lower rates for health insurance for workers at a particular company.

However, the costs of joining a group or starting a new relationship also can be plenty:

• Financial. Financial investments of various kinds, from initiation fees for a frater- nity, sorority, or country club to more expensive clothing for the job to nursery school costs for employed parents.

• Time. The time required, especially at the beginning of the relationship or group membership, in addition to time spent in meetings and routine group activities.

• Effort. The amount of effort involved such as typing meeting minutes, setting up a new store display, or studying for the state legal bar exam.

• Regret. Less obvious costs include forgone opportunities. Generally you can only attend one university at a time, marry one person at a time, or work for one com- pany at a time. “Buyer’s remorse” refers to the feelings of sadness involved after a purchase that involved a choice among alternatives.

• Social. Costs can also be social. For exam- ple, in the course of working with other members to set goals or create a course of action, you may experience unpleas- ant confrontations with others. Ultimately such disputes may even become impor- tant enough to split the group.

Sociologist George Homans’s theory of exchange in groups (1974) emphasized “minimax” principles—

A sense of belonging can be a socio- emotional benefit to group member- ship that’s just as powerful and fulfill- ing as any tangible reward.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 99 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Exchange Theories

that minimal costs and maxi- mum rewards make a group more attractive to recruits or even to current members. Homans believed that if the costs of group membership increased to become greater than its rewards, or if rewards dropped or costs increased during one’s tenure as a mem- ber, individuals would begin to leave the group. Here one might consider the Internet- based company Google. Its business model has been remarkably successful by emphasizing the importance of employees for meeting its goals. Google insists that its

employees feel part of the organization, and make that clear by emphasizing its innovations, from its health and retirement plans, to its flexible and generous scheduling options for vaca- tion and maternity leave, and even free laundry facilities. Google’s workers consistently point out how much time they spend at work, but just as consistently identify it as one of the best companies to work for in the United States (see”100 Best Companies,” 2011)

Often to gain employment with organizations, applicants must possess a college degree applicable to the job that is being applied for. The degree represents a personal cost that the applicant was willing to incur in the hope of future gain or reward. In order to minimize the costs associated with attaining the degree, the applicant often searches for schools that offer comparable degrees at lower costs. The applicants also seek ways to reduce the costs associated with materials needed for school. The applicant assumes the risks associated with going to school because of recognized proof that having a degree increases earning potential after graduation. Thus applicants for certain jobs view education costs as being necessary for obtaining desired positions in the work environment.

Life is not always as simple as toting up the rewards and costs of group membership, then staying or leaving as the benefits and costs balance out. Many costs and rewards are hard to quantify, such as feelings of satisfaction. Furthermore, without other options, an individual may feel constrained to remain with his or her current group or relationship. For example, during hard economic times, people keep the jobs they already have, fearing that another job may not become readily available or that the current employment alterna- tives are worse than the job they now have. An individual may remain in an unrewarding “love” relationship, feeling that it is better than being alone or fearing that no one as good as the current partner will come along.

Thus individuals also need to consider their available choices. Thibaut and Kelley’s classic (1959) interdependence theory directly addresses this issue of alternatives. In Thibaut and Kelley’s theory, individuals have an established and relatively stable comparison level (CL) of expectations for their interactions, rewards, and costs associated with a particular

Like Google, many companies today provide an abundance of attractive features to their employees, such as strong ben- efits plans, free food, and even help with daily chores, like laundry facilities.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 100 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Exchange Theories

group. Their comparison level can come from previous experiences, the experiences of similar others, cultural expectations, or advance research completed through libraries or the Internet. Perhaps even the individual’s level of self-esteem may affect his or her CL. For example, your salary expectations may be based on your initial salary working for a company, what you’ve been able to glean about salaries from co-workers (since many companies want their workers to hold salaries totally confidential), and advertisements in trade publications. These inflows of information plus current employment figures in your field can influence your decision to ask for a raise and the dollar figure that you believe you currently deserve, or to seek employment elsewhere.

Thibaut and Kelley also posit a comparison level for alternatives: “CL alt

” is the least sat- isfying alternative available to the individual. Individuals are hypothesized to compare their CL with their CL

alt to decide whether to leave or stay in a relationship, remain in an

existing group, or join a new group.

Let’s take a very simplistic example: Consider someone who currently holds a job paying $40,000 per year. She interviews on the job market and is blissfully happy to receive the following three offers:

$45,000 per year

$50,000 per year

$55,000 per year

According to interdependence theory, our fortunate employee’s choice is clear. Our job seeker’s CL

alt of $45,000, which is her lowest offer, is still greater than her comparison

level, which is $40,000. Interdependence theory predicts she will leave her current job to take another, even if it is not the $55,000 job of her highest offer, because she now knows that her baseline of worth in the market is still more than she’s currently being paid.

Of course, most situations are multidimensional and the prospective member of a group, or someone deciding to leave a group or relationship, typically considers a range of alter- natives along each dimension. All together, Thibaut and Kelley believe that if

CL > CL alt

the individual will remain in the current group

CL < CL alt

the individual will leave the current group

CL = CL alt

the choice cannot be predicted

While some of this may seem like simple common sense, it is important to recognize that not all researchers agree with minimax principles. Equity theory (Adams, 1965), for example, postulates that individuals will try to achieve consistency between their costs and rewards in their interactions with others. For example, if you work very hard yet feel underpaid for your efforts, due to your perceived disparity between cost (to you in work) and reward (to you in compensation) you may feel compelled to seek employment in a group where these where cost and reward were better aligned for you. On a less formal basis, we often discuss our romantic relationships in almost economic terms. If we feel we aren’t getting enough out of a relationship, we may sever it. Conversely, it might seem close to paradise to give very little to a job or a relationship but to receive a great deal in return.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 101 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.3 Entering, Maintaining, and Leaving Groups

Minimax theory is a good theory for recognizing basic behaviors for persons seeking membership in a group. However, once a person joins a group, commitment levels may rise. This commitment level can be recognized by the amount of extra effort that the per- son will apply to assigned tasks and also the person’s strong desire to maintain member- ship in the group (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982) Consider what is needed in order to encourage higher levels of commitment to the group.

While all exchange theories assert that the underrewarded usually become irate, feeling cheated and deprived, and seriously consider leaving the group or relationship, equity theory directly addresses the case of overreward. The overrewarded individuals may also change their behavior (Leventhal, Weiss, & Long, 1969). Realizing the inequity of receiv- ing more than they should they might increase their group inputs by, for example, work- ing harder or producing more goods. If it is not possible to increase the quantity of one’s productivity in these situations, the individual may try to increase the quality of his or her output. Initially, the overrewarded also may feel guilty. However, another possibility, par- ticularly for those occupying a leadership role, is to alter their perceptions of others, such as co-workers—typically downward—to justify the higher rewards they receive.

Consider Emily and James, who inherited a large, very valuable company from their father. Both were traditionally hard workers, but having gained control of this company, they discover that they spend considerably more time at work than they used to; while they used to work 50-hour weeks, they are now working 60-, 70-, and even 80-hour weeks. In this way, they may be trying to justify their new positions of increased power and wealth. They also notice that most of their employees do not spend the kind of hours at work that they do, which also allows them explain to themselves—or rationalize—why they receive the much greater financial benefits that they do.

Exchanges also can occur across groups, contributing to the decisions of two or more groups to work together. We will address intragroup versus intergroup cooperation ver- sus competition in Chapter 10. It’s worth noting here, however, that many groups regu- larly engage in bargaining and mediation practices with each other to achieve satisfactory exchanges.

The exchange theory research literature makes it clear that groups with relatively low costs have an advantage attracting members. Groups offering rewards, perhaps especially rewards proportionate to costs, as the equity theory research literature suggests, also have an edge on gathering recruits. When a member has a choice of groups, a group cannot simply hold out rewards at the very beginning of admission. The group that maintains rewards—or rewarding experiences—throughout the membership experience will prob- ably have more success at maintaining membership, and thus, continuing to survive.

5.3 Entering, Maintaining, and Leaving Groups People enter groups several ways. Recall again the cliché “you can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your family.” From darling Aunt Lil to eccentric Uncle Bill, family is an ascribed group. In addition, prisoners, pupils, drafted soldiers, workers in a bad labor market, all can find themselves continuing in groups not of their own choosing.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 102 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.3 Entering, Maintaining, and Leaving Groups

Similarly, you may have little choice about leaving a group. If your violation of group norms is severe enough, you can be expelled. In certain kinds of routinized aggregates, such as col- lege cohorts, the only way to stay a member is to fail. Graduation, retirement, widowhood, even promotions, are socially validated rites of passage to commemorate role and group loss.

Let’s suppose you at least had some choice about affiliation. Recall from Chapter 3 that Bruce Tuckman has one theory of group growth and dispersion that assumes

• members enter, • make adjustments to one another, • encounter conflict along the way in establishing one’s position in the group and

setting group norms, • and then eventually the group dissolves.

Recall, too, we would suspect that Tuckman probably envisioned informal groups because many groups (as well as formal organizations) survive even several turnovers of membership.

Moreland and Levine (1982) see a longer, perhaps even permanent group phenomenon, a continuing sequence of group socialization and resocialization. Potential members investi- gate a group and in turn groups recruit members. New members undergo initiation rituals and a period of adjustment. In return, the group may assist members in their preferences. For example, during the 1970s and 1980s, many American businesses offered help with child- care, flexible hours, and even job sharing to accommodate changing norms about family care. Once a member is established, he or she may engage in role negotiation and maintenance.

Resocialization may occur in response to changes in the member, such as the physical changes associated with aging; changes in the organization, such as the introduction of new technology; or changes in the environment, such as requests for the company to engage in greener manufac- turing processes. The member may need to learn new skills, such as online course man- agement or a new statistical analysis program, or increase their productivity. Eventu- ally, due to incompatibilities, illness, or joining another group, membership may end. Both the individual and the group may create accounts or stories to explain this disjunc- ture (“I wasn’t fired, I quit.”). However, it is also possible for membership to continue until company or member relo- cation, retirement, or death brings the group relationship to a halt.

Companies must keep up with cultural shifts and changes. For example, in the 1970s and 80s, many companies started offering more attractive maternity and childcare options for women entering the workplace in higher numbers.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 103 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.3 Entering, Maintaining, and Leaving Groups

As a group member or group leader you must be aware of personal needs. These per- sonal needs will motivate group members to stay or leave the group. Likewise, group needs can perform other functions. These needs can cause joining, growth, disintegration, firing, and/or leaving behaviors to surface. As a leader you can prepare the organization and the individual to perform most of these functions in a pro- ductive manner. Joining and leaving are natural occur- rences in group life. Recog- nizing this fact and planning for its eventuality is what will make both a constructive and

not a destructive process. Consider what you can do to make the latter stages of group life a constructive process for the individual and the group.

In families, the “he said, she said” accounts are often fascinating. Each romantic partner appears to create a totally different account of “how we met,” “how we wed,” “what was right,” “what went wrong,” and in cases of divorce or dissolution, “how we parted.” For example former Florida U.S. Senator Bob Graham delights in telling about how his parents met on a bus traveling in north Florida. His mother entered the bus at a small town and his father later joined the journey. According to the senior Graham, the bus was absolutely packed and the only available seat was next to his future bride. According to the Senator’s mother, the bus was nearly empty and this stranger insisted on sitting down next to her.

Sometimes parting can amount to literal social obliteration. If a person you’ve been in contact with leaves a firm, her contact information may be wiped clean, leaving no way of contacting her in her new place of employment. In such a case, her parting from her former group amounted to her previous status as a member being completely erased, as if she had never existed at all. Such occurrences are frequent when people change jobs; contacts can be easily lost unless a conscious effort is made to maintain them before the changes takes place.

Situations like the preceding can occur because in many groups, a voluntary exit is defined as tantamount to disloyalty. Although the individual may have been treated poorly in the group, either individually or collectively, at some primitive level, she or he appears to be expected to remain and “take it.” If, instead, the individual leaves, especially if it is for a better job or more prestigious group, the action is seen not only as betrayal, but possibly a cause for imitation. If one member leaves, why not others as well? If too many members leave, the word may get around and the group could begin to have problems recruiting. If the situation becomes too extreme, the group may even collapse or totally disband.

Groups that don’t make themselves attractive enough to work- ers risk being weak not only in recruiting potential job seek- ers, but also in retaining their existing personnel. If employees leave en masse, the company could collapse altogether.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 104 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Creating Productive Groups: An Introduction to Group Cohesion

All organizations are, thus, organic: They develop and grow, they confront various chal- lenges, they gain new members and lose old members. A successful business organization will recognize these as characteristics fundamental to any group, and develop strategies to deal with them. Such strategies may include techniques for retaining good employees, removing bad employees, making employees feel part of a larger group, and motivating employees to identify their success (at least in part) with the success of the business as a whole. All organizations change over time; the organization that recognizes this and effec- tively prepares for it is much more likely to be successful.

5.4 Creating Productive Groups: An Introduction to Group Cohesion

This final section discusses ways to foster productivity in groups. To do so, we need to look more closely at group cohesion and how we can attempt to measure it.

What Is Group Cohesion?

Cohesiveness is central to the study of groups. It is considered vital in group decision making, group performance, goal attainment, social identity, and member satisfaction. Yet cohesion, “studied more than any other aspect of group structure” (Moreland & Levine, 1982), has also been a problematic concept to conceptualize and measure (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009; Mudrack, 1989)). Often cohesion has been implied in scholarship rather than explicitly defined or measured. Indeed, many definitions of cohesion confound it with its antecedents or consequences. And is group cohesion a part of group structure or is it an ongoing group process—or both?

Typically, “cohesion” implies solidarity, or group “we-feeling.” It is not always clear whether scholars mean the accumulated feelings, beliefs, or actions of individuals toward each other, or toward their group, or whether cohesion is a property of the group rather than the attitudes of individuals toward the group. Those who focus on attitudes among individual members include Dorwin Cartwright (1968), who defined cohesion as “the degree to which members of the group desire to remain in the group,” and Bernice Lott (1961), who defined it as “the number and strength of mutual positive attitudes among the members of a group.” Leon Festinger’s definition of cohesion as “the resultant of all the forces acting on the member to remain in the group” appeared to address the total group, although he suggested what cohesiveness resulted from but never defined what it was. The thousands of published cohesiveness reports describe these “forces” in idiosyn- cratic and unsystematic ways.

The affective perspective (how you feel) appears to be the most common in definitions of group cohesion, either as interpersonal attraction among members or to the group itself. However, the affective view truncates other facets of cohesion, especially more collective structural or interactional dimensions. Let’s begin with the first item: interpersonal attrac- tion among members. Concentrating on interpersonal relations accentuates individuals and the characteristics they possess that induce liking. Despite some disagreement, Ber- nice Lott’s definition of cohesion as positive affect among group members is currently

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 105 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Creating Productive Groups: An Introduction to Group Cohesion

the most common. Yet this definition can be the most restrictive and the most applicable to informal groups only. It certainly doesn’t describe faculty members at that prestigious university described earlier who disliked to even interact with one another. Members can be attracted and remain because of the rewards the groups offers, not because of affinity toward the members.

Cohesion, as stated in the previous paragraph, can also be conceived as an individual’s attraction to the total group, which preserves an affective orientation in the definition but stresses the collectivity. One scholar who takes this perspective is Kenneth Bollen at the University of North Carolina. Envisioning cohesion as attraction to a collectivity can target why people join or maintain membership in groups that bestow status or other impersonal rewards even if they do not particularly like other group members. Bollen’s research on group identity has helped move “cohesion” beyond simple interpersonal lik- ing (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990).

A more communal perspective about group cohesion redirects our focus to group proper- ties, such as a “common fate,” or collective empowerment, or to structures that encourage total group unity. Terms such as group solidarity, or esprit de corps, invoke a communal sentiment, although as Mudrack (1989) points out, reliance on individual attitude surveys has made measurement difficult and confusing.

The inconsistent consequences of cohesion prevalent in the research literature that we’ll examine in more detail in Chapter 6 may result in part from trying to squeeze a complex, continuous, and clearly multidimensional phenomenon into a restrictive single concep- tual container. At times, the research literature resembles a ludicrous struggle over the “right” dimension of cohesion—as though there were only one. After all, a casual friend- ship group differs from a coordinated sports team performance, and we might suspect different dimensions of cohesion apply at work. Once we look past friendship groups or the artificial setting of laboratory dyads to large or complex organizations and the groups

Management Connections Fostering Cohesion

You are the boss of a large company in a very competitive business environment. It has been brought to your attention that a number of your midlevel male managers have begun working out together at a local gym, a gym that is exclusively open to males. Several of these managers have made important contacts at this gym that have led to important sales for your company.

Several of your employees—both men and women—have made it clear that they feel excluded from some impor- tant parts of your company’s business, either because they are not allowed to join this gym, do not have the time to do, or simply don’t have any interest in doing so. They feel that the managers who have benefited from the networking they have done at the gym have an unfair advantage in obtaining results that can lead to larger sala- ries and bonuses, promotions, and enhanced security.

As the boss, what if any action do you take? How do you address the concerns of the employees who either can’t, or won’t, join the gym? Can you reward the initiative of those managers who have utilized the gym to increase your company’s revenues, without alienating or excluding those who do not go to this gym? Map out a strategy that seeks to reward the initiative of the managers who go to this gym, while maintaining the loyalty of those managers who do not.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 106 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Creating Productive Groups: An Introduction to Group Cohesion

embedded within them, structural, affective, interactional, and other forms of cohesion will operate, some simultaneously. To best understand group cohesion, it is a very good idea to employ multiple dimensions.

Thus, in this text, group cohesion is defined as the degree to which a group exists or oper- ates as a unified entity. This descriptive definition is meant to introduce sufficient flexibil- ity to encompass individual and collective properties and processes. “Group unity” can include variation along individual affect, interpersonal relations, and structural continua. (See also recent work by Reitz, Breton, Kisiel Dion, & Dion, 2009.)

How Do We Measure Group Cohesion?

Defining, predicting, and measuring cohesion can all be conflated. Indeed, some have defined any variable that increases cohesion as “cohesiveness” itself. Instead of directly measuring cohesiveness, an experimenter in a study may simply assume it is present by manipulating perceived member similarity or attraction. In many cases, researchers have assigned group prestige, emotionally aroused the membership, or designed cooperative tasks, yet never directly assessed which dimension of cohesion was created. Thus, as you can see, perceived similarity, group prestige, emotional arousal, or tasks such as Aron- son’s “jigsaw classroom,” which are designed to raise cohesion, can influence group cohe- sion—yet are distinct from it.

To study cohesiveness mainly as casual face-to-face interaction, which is the case in most laboratory experiments, has implications for how we measure cohesion. That may be the major reason why most measures of cohesiveness have been self-reports, including socio- metric individual choices or sociograms, which show the geographic or affective proxim- ity of members. A collective or group level concept (cohesion) thus becomes measured as the sum, average, or variance of individual scores. Yet by manipulating group prestige, group identity, or setting arousal, social and behavioral scientists have paid at least token attention to cohesion’s communal properties.

Here’s how we have produced group cohesiveness in experimental laboratory groups (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009; Friedkin, 2004):

• We can simply tell group members that they will like each other (yes, it can be that easy!)

• We can manipulate group prestige; more prestigious groups are generally more cohesive groups.

• We can provide an emotionally arousing experience such as electric shock. • We can assign group tasks that require cooperation among the members. • We can create a group enemy.

Because so much laboratory research on group cohesion describes experiments with col- lege student participants, the manipulations of arousal, prestige, or threats to the group are often weak or artificial, the research period brief, and group “members” are initially strangers. Even when existing groups are studied, structural aspects of the organization itself that could affect cohesiveness, such as levels of hierarchy or ecological design are neglected.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 107 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5What Did We Discover?

Ultimately, as a group member you must consider whether you facilitate group cohesion or whether you stand in the way of it. You must take an inventory of factors that may deter cohesion in the groups that you currently belong to and/or lead. It should be noted that not all disagreements should be considered as deterrents to group cohesion or group unity. Some disagreement is healthy as long as it is constructive and leads to the achieve- ment of healthy group goals.

Consider all relationships with and between each group member. Carefully consider each interaction. Pay close attention to each action that you take and why you have taken that action and its impact on yourself and on each member of the group. Consider whether your actions and the actions of each group member help the group or are selfish and det- rimental to group goals.

Summary We are attracted to and join groups for a variety of reasons. Personality, gender, similarity of group members, and a variety of other factors can impact how a group functions. Group members generally pay attention to the costs they incur and the benefits they obtain from group membership. A variety of theories have been proposed to assist in understanding how group members go about evaluating costs and benefits from group membership. These evaluations, and other factors, can influence who and when individuals enter and exit various groups. Groups vary in the level of cohesiveness they have, though research- ers have had difficulty defining those differences and the concept of cohesiveness itself.

What Did We Discover? • Group cohesion can be difficult to obtain, but is a crucial feature of a successful

organization. • Various rewards are available to good employees, but the rewards must be consid-

ered relative to the costs incurred. • While making employees feel part of an organization, managers must avoid the

risks of making some employees feel excluded. • Intangible benefits are often a significant factor in how an employee will regard his

or her satisfaction in the workplace.

Business Application Exercises

1. Employee satisfaction is notoriously difficult to measure, but it can be pretty easy to spot. Identify two different ways employees behave that indicate they are satisfied, or very satisfied, with their jobs. Identify two different ways employees behave that indicate they are dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied, with their jobs.

2. What kinds of strategies can a company use to create a sense of group loyalty to a corporation? Name three specific techniques a company might use to increase group cohesion.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 108 9/1/11 9:59 AM

CHAPTER 5What Did We Discover?

3. Give an example of your own where the costs incurred by taking a certain job would outweigh the potential rewards that job offers. In what ways could the company offering the job restructure these costs in order to make the job more attractive?

4. Explain why employees may be more likely to put up with an unsatisfactory work environment during times of high unemployment.

Key Terms

affective perspective

ascriptive

cohesion

comparison level

comparison level for alternatives

equity theory

exchange theories

group cohesion

group socialization and resocialization

intangible rewards

interdependence theory

mere exposure

minmax theory

personality-oriented perspective

propinquity

return on investment (ROI)

similarity

situational perspective

tangible rewards

theory of exchange in groups