For A-Plus Writer

06ch_losh_behavior.pdf

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

Group Cohesiveness

Learning Objectives

What We Will Be Investigating • What are some of the ways members of groups identify with each other? • What helps foster the effectiveness of teams? • What are some of the obstacles to groups working well together? • What specific differences are there between a mere group and a genuine team?

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 111 9/1/11 9:51 AM

CHAPTER 6Introduction

Chapter Outline

“Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.”

—Henry Ford

Before we begin to examine causes and consequences of group cohesion, let’s consider the following questions:

• What has been your most stellar group experience? • What were the qualities or events that made it such a good experience? • What has been a negative group experience you’ve had? • What were the qualities or events that made it a negative experience? • Was there anything that could have been done to improve that experience?

It’s very likely that the quality of the interpersonal relations that you had with other mem- bers, the attraction you had to the group itself, or the efforts made by the larger organiza- tion to make the group attractive to you played important roles in your overall assessment of your group experience.

Cohesion has probably been studied more than any other feature of group dynamics. Recall from Chapter 5 that group cohesion is defined as the degree to which a group exists or operates as a unified entity. This definition can refer to attraction to the other group members and to the larger collectivity itself. In this chapter, we examine the many causes of group cohesiveness as well as several outcomes of belonging to a cohesive group. We start by looking at togetherness and the three primary factors associated with it. Then the focus turns to the dynamics of teams. The chapter concludes with a closer look at the pros, as well as the cons, of cohesion.

6.1 Togetherness Interpersonal Factors Structural Factors Organizational Factors

6.2 Teams Ways to Foster Team Cohesion Detriments to Team Cohesion

6.3 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Good Stuff” Autonomy Representation Enforcement

6.4 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Bad Stuff” Pluralistic Ignorance Scapegoating and Aggression Self-Censorship Groupthink Cohesion and Productivity: Another Look

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 112 9/1/11 9:51 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Togetherness

6.1 Togetherness There are positive and negative examples of togetherness. First we’ll discuss negative examples to help illustrate that togetherness can occur in all types of group contexts— good, bad, and traumatic. During World War II, the German army, or Wehrmacht, was famous for its national and internal loyalty. Even when outnumbered and outarmed by Allied Forces, ill fed and in rags, German soldier brigades often literally fought to the last man without surrender. Japanese pilots in World War II deliberately crashed their planes into enemy targets, committing suicide in the process (Janowitz, 1948). More recently, followers of the Reverend Jim Jones first trailed their leader to Guyana, and then com- mitted mass suicide at his apparent request. Several years later, Heaven’s Gate commune members committed mass suicide in California, apparently believing that space aliens would whisk them away in the process. Even more recently, suicide bombers have killed thousands of people (including, obviously enough, themselves). Worldwide, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of young persons who are apparently willing to die for their cause, including jihad. Such willingness to sacrifice everything, including one’s life, for the larger collectivity demands our attention.

But what builds and nourishes this kind of loyalty? Many would argue that members of highly cohesive groups are more willing to sacrifice for the sake of the collectivity, even if it means their lives. Thus, this chapter combines the earlier material on attraction to groups with research on cohesiveness to examine several of the determinants and out- comes of group cohesion.

There’s a special something about a group that functions well together. Yet you may recall that attempts to define cohesion frequently break down into either vague or overly restric- tive terms. Part of the problem is failing to consider the many dimensions of group cohe- sion. What makes up the group is a significant factor in how that group does its work. Indeed, the very transition from a mere group to a genuine team can often be the result of the characteristics of those who make up the group. At the same time, the goals of a group, and its success in meeting those goals, provides another way of evaluating its performance

and effectiveness. And these are just two important fac- tors to consider in evaluating how well a group performs its functions. A unified sports team is not a neighborhood after-school friendship group. Different bases for group cohesion depend on the type of group and on the resources that the group and members can offer one another. Simi- larly, the dimension of cohe- sion that may work well for one type of task (providing emotional support in a drug recovery group) may work

Working together as a unified team is often the cornerstone of success in business, academics, sports, and indeed any context.

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 113 9/1/11 9:51 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Togetherness

poorly in another (assembling a car in a garage). This chapter will start by explaining the three main factors of togetherness: interpersonal, structural, and organizational.

Interpersonal Factors

There are several possible sources of group cohesion. Some sources are more interper- sonal, while others are structural in nature. Of course, more than one source can operate simultaneously for a particular group.

Interpersonal sources of group cohesion depend on the characteristics of individual members. The group is cohesive because members like and are attracted to one another. Some major sources include member similarity and member attractiveness.

Member similarity, which is probably the number one factor in interpersonal attraction (Chapter 5), includes demographic factors, such as age and gender; similarity in attitudes, such as values and beliefs; and situational similarity, such as travelers in a foreign country or employees in danger of being laid off or fired.

Member attractiveness is an interpersonal resource that can induce group cohesion. It is very often characteristic of an informal group because informal groups frequently have

Management Connections Diversity and Cohesion

Most research studies, especially laboratory experiments that examine the influence of member characteristics on interpersonal ties, use groups of strangers. Other “members” of these experimental groups can immediately know information about these individuals only from superficial observation or because the experimenters provide selected, often bogus information about them. (See McGrath, 1984.)

How do you think the results might differ if we studied intact groups instead? Might an oral his- tory of the group or a longitudinal, natural setting design such as Newcomb’s scholarship house for students (Chapter 4) yield different data?

Consider a small company of 30 or so employees: 25 are male, five are female. Two of the women are Latinas, two of the males are African American, and the rest are White. A new manager is employed, who is a Chinese American female. What charac- teristics might the new manager have that provides some common ground with the other employ- ees? What characteristics might be seen by some employees as obstacles to the group’s cohesion? What kind of strategies might the owner of the company develop to help the new manager feel part of the group, and as adding to group cohesion, rather than subtracting from it?

Diversity adds tremendous value in terms of achieving a company’s goals. But bringing diverse backgrounds and perspectives together in a cohesive, focused way also can create chal- lenges for those in leadership positions.

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 114 9/1/11 9:51 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Togetherness

more limited structural resources that they can use to recruit appealing members. Interper- sonal attraction can come from various sources. The prestige or social class of individual members (irrespective of the status of the group itself), member physical attractiveness, and supportive warm personalities of members can all be attractive forces.

Structural Factors

A large company can only do so much about the personal characteristics of the people who work there and the effects those characteristics may have within the company. How- ever, large companies do typically have control over all kinds of structural properties, from salary schedules to attractive physical décor. For example, someone may wish to work at IBM because it produces a well-known product and has a good reputation for treating its employees well, irrespective of what the other workers may be like. Structural sources of cohesion refer to properties in the group’s physical or social environment or regular, systematic rewards that a group can offer to its members. Structural sources of cohesion center more around attraction to the group itself or aspects related to group tasks than they do around the positive characteristics of individual members as is the case with interpersonal sources of cohesion. Structural cohesion thus is usually more apparent in formal than in informal groups.

Propinquity One very basic structural element of cohesion is propinquity, or spatial proximity to oth- ers. This can be an important structural property because people interact more with indi- viduals who are next to them, regardless of how they feel towards those individuals. By seeing the same people in the elevator every day, standing in line in the cafeteria with the same individuals, or always being seated next to the same person in a training workshop, those persons become familiar to us. Other things equal, Zajonc (2000) found that we like familiar objects, even familiar nonsense syllables, better than unfamiliar ones. There is, presumably, sufficient stress within a workplace already, due to deadlines, production schedules, meetings, and other work-related obligations. Familiarity can help with this

Business in the Real World Fostering Teamwork

Consider a job you have had, or a job you currently have. How many of the people with whom you work do you know well? Do you know the names of their spouses and children? Do you know what they do for fun, or where they went on vacation? Have you ever been to their house, or they to yours? Have you gone out with them after work? On the weekend?

Are there people you see every day at work you don’t have any interaction with other than to say hello? What, if anything, characterizes generally those you do know well? What, if anything, characterizes generally those you do not know well?

What kinds of things might you do to increase your interaction with fellow workers, particularly with those you do not know very well? Is such interaction an important goal? How can it improve your work environment? How can it improve the other person’s work environment? How can it help improve the effectiveness of the company for which you work?

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 115 9/1/11 9:51 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Togetherness

stress. Simply put, we are more comfortable with those things we are more used to. In time, we may come to enjoy the unfamiliar thing—we may even enjoy it a great deal more than the familiar—but given the alternatives of the familiar and the unfamiliar, most of us gravitate toward that to which we are accustomed.

Emotional and Physical Arousal Group leaders generally have more potential power to influence structural sources of cohesion than they do interpersonal sources. Leaders can generate creative and appeal- ing group tasks or engender a group enemy. They may have a budget to improve the group’s immediate physical surroundings. The group may have rewards, such as a raise or promotion, that it can distribute to loyal members. Structural sources of cohesion may emphasize collective or group identity. Some possible bases that can help create structural cohesion are to follow. Businesses may be able to unobtrusively manipulate several of these bases to facilitate team spirit.

Various forms of arousal can generate group cohesiveness. Emotional arousal and its physiological components, such as heightened heart rate or blood pressure, tend to strengthen affiliative needs. On a structural level, group symbols, spirited music, or even bright colors may increase emotional arousal among members. A company may expect its employees to wear a uniform, or at least a badge, identifying them as members of the company. Some American companies, following a practice more traditional in Japan, start the workday with a set of exercises, done as a group. These are examples of the kind of thing companies can do to provide a positive emotional aspect for employees. On the other hand, a frightening experience, including a scary movie or a potential takeover by another company, can provide a negative emotional arousal that is also conducive to group unity. A common enemy can increase emotional arousal too, and sometimes group leaders can use this basis as a way to foster greater group cohesion. As noted in an article profiling Jim Sinegal, chief executive of Costco, on Costco’s chief competitor Wal-Mart: “There is little love lost between Wal-Mart and Costco. Wal-Mart, for example, boasts that its Sam’s Club division has the lowest prices of any retailer. Mr. Sinegal emphatically dis- missed that assertion with a one-word barnyard epithet” (Greenhouse, 2005, para. 28). No doubt Sinegal’s attitude is well-known to, and quite possibly shared by, his employees.

On the other hand, slight overcrowding, which, among other things raises temperature, can increase physical arousal. An extreme example of this might be found among the first responders to the 9/11 terrorist attack. In extremely dangerous conditions, people who were, in many cases, total strangers worked effectively together. The physical closeness and the shared danger certainly contributed to their cohesiveness. In less dire circumstances, however, managers need to be mindful of not creating such a condition among employees so as not to inadvertently strain cohesion; striking the balance between employees feeling too crowded and feeling too isolated presents a challenge to an effective manager.

Goals Common group goals are another way to increase structural cohesion in a group. Com- mon goals typically occur when official group goals coincide with goals that most of the membership holds. For example, a class wants to win the joint science fair project or a

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 116 9/1/11 9:51 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Togetherness

sales team wants to set a new district record. Achieving group goals generates a sense of accomplishment. All else equal, people are more satisfied with membership in successful than in unsuccessful groups (Seta & Seta, 1996). If group goals are also very attractive to aspiring members, a group may use its goal achievements to appeal to new recruits.

In Chapter 10, we’ll learn more about the camp experiences that Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues (Sherif et al., 1988) created that brought two teams of boys to continuing con- flict as sworn enemies. In Sherif’s studies, only the engineered construction of goals that required the groups to cooperate with each other in order to repair the camp truck or fix the camp water tower got the two groups talking and working together.

Group goals may include defeating a common enemy, or a common enemy may arise after individuals have been members for some time. Neighborhood youth gangs and college or business rivalries remind us that enemies can occur (or can be created) in both formal and informal groups. Research (Castano & Serone, 2002) shows that the presence of a group enemy strengthens in-group identification and makes that collective identity more salient to members. The increased arousal in the group motivate them to more goal-oriented behavior.

You are probably familiar with companies identifying their main competition as such an enemy; indeed, some companies (consider Coca-Cola and Pepsi, Verizon and AT&T, or Direct TV and Dish Network) make that identification as part of their marketing cam- paign. If a company advertises that its product is superior to a competing product, it is safe to assume that this claim functions to organize and unify employees to help “defeat” their common enemy.

For the last 10 years, at different times Democrats and Republicans in the House of Repre- sentatives and in the Senate have shared the common goal of capturing Osama bin Laden. Often the members of the two political parties are at odds with one another and have very different goals. Capturing Osama bin Laden was a unifying goal. In 2011, a U.S. special forces military unit captured Osama bin Laden. Both Republicans and Democrats

in Congress and in the rest of the United States had positive feelings about the accomplishment.

Interdependent goals in particular can join a group together. When group goals are interdependent, this typi- cally implies a specialized division of labor. Each mem- ber must be able to perform his or her unique assigned task in the correct sequence in order for the group to complete its assignment. For example, when he was on the faculty of University of Texas,

A common enemy can increase emotional arousal. Group leaders can use this arousal to foster greater group cohesion.

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 117 9/1/11 9:51 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Togetherness

Eliot Aronson (with Patnoe, 1997) created the “jigsaw puzzle classroom” in order to ensure that all public school students, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or ability level, were included in classroom problem solving. Each student had to share his or her unique information in order for the class to complete the task.

Shared Identity A group is also in a position to emphasize a shared identity. Shared identity has an influ- ence on behavior and individual identity. For example, college students who identified highly with their university and read a statement evaluating their university badly in comparison to a rival university showed a decrease in self-esteem and an increase in favoritism toward their university. A bias toward their own university related to a later rise in self-esteem (Smurda, Wittig, & Gokalp, 2006). Avis, the second largest car-rental company at the time, used its threatened identity as a sales tool. Avis used the slogan “We Try Harder,” suggesting that employees had to work together to challenge leader Hertz.

Groups that emphasize group cohesion often have resources to offer to members such as incentives to keep them in the group and to attract new potential associates. These struc- tural incentives can include

• Prestige or social status. • Material resources, including money. • Knowledge and skill. The specialized skills that members can offer one another. • Historical appeal. The college with attractive old buildings and a reputation in

folklore and the legendary company whose brand is immediately and positively recognizable, such as Coca-Cola, are prominent examples of historic appeal. The recognition factor alone can mean these entities have an easier time attracting stu- dents or employees.

• Opportunity. The group may give the individual the chance to share, develop, or demonstrate a special skill. Perhaps the company provides unique training oppor- tunities or a showcase for the member’s achievements.

• Food/comfort. As a short-term measure, serving food can promote group cohesion. Members generally are more satisfied when they are fed.

• Security. Financial and sometimes emotional security often provides a comfort zone that promotes group cohesion.

Organizational Factors

Finally, organizational factors affect cohesion. A group may be part of a larger formal organization or it may exist as an entire formal organization on its own. Although an indi- vidual’s feelings about group members in general may be neutral or even hostile rather than positive, the formal organization in which the group is embedded can be very attrac- tive. This continues to focus our attention on what the group itself (rather than individual members) can offer as opposed to interpersonal attraction. As you recall from Chapter 3, because of their history, formal organizations frequently can offer members resources of various kinds that a more informal group cannot.

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 118 9/1/11 9:51 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Togetherness

Many people join an organization because it has high status or prestige. As noted above, certain companies may have cachet because they produce or sell high-status merchandise, such as Neiman Marcus or Saks Fifth Avenue. The members of a particular social club may be highly educated or hold prestigious jobs. In addition to status or prestige, a group may appear to have sufficient power in its environment that joining it suggests that the group will help advance individual goals. For example, the Harvard graduate is confident she will find a good job; the Microsoft executive feels secure that he will be approved for a home mortgage. Organizations that have considerable resources often may be persuaded to share some of these with new recruits.

The display of tradition and pageantry that an organization can support frequently attract members. School songs, fraternity symbols, or time-honored religious liturgy are exam- ples of symbols that can contribute to a sense of collective identity, make a group more attractive to potential members, and thereby instill pride in current members. Likewise, a company’s headquarters in a thriving downtown metropolis or office space on the top floors of a beautiful building may serve as a sign of its power and prestige and therefore serve as an attraction to employees. People enjoy the prestige of being associated with a successful company; this feature, naturally, helps attract good employees. A well-run and highly regarded organization thus generates something of a feedback mechanism: A high-quality organization attracts high-quality employees, who contribute to the kind of success that will allow the organization to continue to attract that kind of employee.

A large formal organization will also create and maintain smaller groups within it, prefer- ably subgroups composed of individuals who share a variety of commonalities. Recall that people are more satisfied with their membership in smaller than in larger groups. Then, this astute company will directly tie these smaller groups to the larger organization to cre- ate a network of interlocking loyalties. Thus, the individual becomes not only committed to the immediate subgroup in which he or she is located, but comes to feel a kinship with the larger school, the com- pany, or the neighborhood (see also Lawler, 2008).

For example, research con- ducted on religious congre- gations (Losh, 1992) found that socioemotional support groups formed there gathered together people who were initially strangers but who had common interests. For example, they were all young mothers or they were all inter- ested in Bible study. In this way, the congregation created new social ties among parish- ioners, which fostered the

The location of an organization can serve as a powerful force in attracting workers. The allure of being located in a major city, for example, may be one of a company’s biggest recruiting tools.

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 119 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Togetherness

overall cohesion of the entire congregation. In contrast, congregations that were character- ized by high levels of informal verbal interaction tended to form cliques. Clique members continually reinforced their relations with one another but did not tend to reach out to new members and did not create ties with other congregational subgroups.

The degree to which organizational cohesion was found to contribute to a congregation’s moving toward its goal was impressive. Congregations with greater numbers of sup- port groups also created more ties with other congregations, regardless of denomination. Groups enmeshed in a network with other churches and synagogues engaged more often in organized social and political action, such as establishing a homeless shelter, an organi- zation that provided emergency health care, or a series of interfaith celebration services. In contrast, high levels of social interaction were unrelated to congregational insularity or to any kind of organized social and political action. It is as if the skills used to build and maintain support groups—or the skills learned through participation in such groups— generalize to other types of organization-building skills, making these congregations more effective.

Many start-up businesses also feature this kind of skill development. A company that starts with just a few, very committed people requires long hours, a fair amount of risk, and sacrificing time spent with family and friends. As new employees are introduced into the organization, they need to develop the kind of skills that allow them to become integrated into this sort of work environment. At the same time, the original employees (often the owners) of the company cannot rely on their intimate interpersonal understand- ing of each other that was there at the start of the company. Consequently, new interper- sonal skills are demanded from both those who helped start the company and from those needed to help the company develop and grow. A well-known example of this kind of situation is Apple Inc.; Microsoft is another celebrated example.

In organizations it is possible to establish a state of cohesion in departments, work pods, or throughout the company. The first place that cohesion can begin is in training. Often employers train new employees in groups. Goals are set for training. The goals are dis- cussed with the trainees. The trainees discuss the goals with one another and check on each other’s progress toward achieving the goals.

More cohesion can be obtained as the company grows and groups of employees estab- lish longevity and have more shared experiences. Thus time together, shared experiences, shared meanings from shared experiences, and propinquity, or spatial proximity to other employees, can combine to create a very strong state of cohesion. This can be true not only for employees but also for the families of those employees. Family members attend com- pany parties, picnics, and celebrations and, over time, form bonds.

In the popular cable television show Army Wives, the wives and husbands of military members share pregnancies, childrearing, schooling, victories, homecomings, and losses. These common experiences help them to experience cohesion much like what their spouses experience within their military units. There are, of course, a number of such situations, where common challenges, similar problems, and various other shared experi- ences generate this kind of cohesion among a group of people who might otherwise not recognize that they even form a coherent group.

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 120 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Teams

6.2 Teams What are some of the factors that distinguish a team from a group? What fosters team unity? What is detrimental to team unity? This section looks closer at each dynamic.

It is important to recognize that there are significant differences between groups and teams. All teams are groups, but not all groups are teams. An effective manager will need to develop effective procedures to make her groups and subgroups of employees become teams. As standardly understood, a group is a relatively small number of people who have various skills—ideally skills that complement each other—and are committed to a set of goals specified by an identified leader (such as the boss). A team is also a relatively small group of people, but one whose complementary skills are geared toward a common goal, and whose members hold each other accountable for helping reach that goal. The following table helps bring out the difference here:

Table 6.1: Comparing groups and teams Group Team

Small group of people Small group of people

Possesses complementary skills and abilities Possesses complementary skills and abilities

Committed to leader’s goal Committed to a common goal

Held accountable to leader Hold each other accountable

Leadership held by one person Shared leadership

Single viewpoint dominates Diverse viewpoints shared

This is not to say that teams are better than groups (or that groups are better than teams). It depends on what the collection of people seeks to accomplish. Are shared responsibility and hearing a multiplicity of views important goals? If so, the team concept seems to be the better approach. On the other hand, if the goal is to accomplish a specific task that has already been established, and the responsibility clearly falls on just one person, the group may be more appropriate. How people work together, and the structure of that work, is often a function of what that group needs to accomplish and what the best way to accom- plish it is.

Ways to Foster Team Cohesion

Very often, a team shares a mental model of the team goals and the steps that are needed to accomplish them (e.g. Hu & Liden, 2011; Mehta, 2009). This shared vision provides a roadmap and a set of directions that team members endorse and it can help boost team productivity.

One way in which a successful team can differ from a group in general is in the collective behaviors that members must master and display in order for the team to operate effec- tively. On-site team member training with the intact group is typically the most effective.

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 121 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Teams

Although challenge activities, such as Outward Bound activities or whitewater rafting, may seem intuitively useful and can be fun for participants, such planned activities typi- cally do not increase team productivity (Jones & Oswick, 2007). As part of training in team skills, it is more important for members to learn to discard “bad habits” that may have carried over from earlier group experiences than to share exciting adventures.

One of the advantages of the team concept—in contrast to the group concept—is that members of the team take responsibility for problems that arise: Rather than reporting some type of problem of conflict to a superior, team members will address those involved in the conflict directly, and attempt to resolve it within the team structure.

Detriments to Team Cohesion

Highly competitive behaviors internal to the group can destroy team unity. Consider two very competitive agents working for a large real estate firm. In aggressively pursuing sales against each other, they may end up doing damage to the firm and its reputation. Furthermore, the temptation to violate moral and even legal principles becomes greater within such a competitive environment. And finally, this kind of competitiveness can harm morale in the work place, making it ultimately a less productive environment. A manager, of course, does not want employees to lose their aggressiveness, but needs to understand how to channel it appropriately, to generate a more cohesive and, consequently, effec- tive workplace. When members of a group begin to recognize that all of its members do

better when they work together—and when man- agers identify ways of helping employees make that recognition—the group starts functioning as a team. Such a team can lead to greater results precisely by developing cooperation rather than competition.

Social loafing, in which some members contrib- ute little but take at least their share of collective rewards, can damage team motivation. If some employees come in late, take a longer lunch break, and leave earlier than others, but still expect to be paid the same, this attitude may infect the others as well. Group moral can plummet and produc- tivity will drop along with it.

A judgmental, intolerant atmosphere or members who are difficult to work with can also impede team functioning. An environment that makes some members feel uncomfortable prevents them from fully participating in the group; if their skills are necessary for the group, this lessens the abil- ity of the group to function as well as it can. Most teams work better when mutual respect is shown among all the team members, and when that respect is lacking, the work environment suffers.

Social loafers can damage group morale and thereby diminish group productivity.

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 122 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Good Stuff”

In terms of structural components, a system that rewards individual standouts or “stars” can undermine team spirit and makes members less likely to want to cooperate. For exam- ple, giving a raise to the top salesperson in a computer components division, but neglect- ing to reward the office and support staff that made that star performance possible, will make many team members angry and less likely to provide stellar support in the future. Without staunch background support, the star may no longer appear so outstanding.

Teams tell us a lot about how a group of people can come together in a cohesive and pro- ductive way (although, of course, there are no guarantees here). For example, are team goals compatible with those of the larger group? If so, cohesive teams can top the list on productivity. If team goals are opposed to those of the larger organization—for example, if team members believe their company does not treat them equitably—they may empha- size social relations over task completion. In such cases cohesive teams can be the least productive of all.

6.3 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Good Stuff” Because companies believe that group cohesion creates a more congenial and productive workforce, many encourage positive social relations among their employees. They may hold group picnics or holiday parties with the hope of creating team spirit. Moreover, larger divisions within a company often splinter into smaller, friendly subgroups, frequently along the lines of geographic layout, such as building floors or wings, or disciplinary simi- larities, such as subgroups of engineers or marketers. Social relations among these disci- pline or geographic subgroups are commonly very cordial too. As long as norms in these larger and smaller groups solidly align with the norms of the larger company, attempts to foster social togetherness are worthwhile because in such cases, cohesive teams will out-produce less cohesive collectivities. On balance, recent analyses using a statistically sophisticated technique called meta analysis, in which the results from several indepen- dent studies are analyzed together, do suggest that in general cohesive groups are more productive than the average group (Evans & Dion, 1991). There are several reasons why this may be so.

There are many possible positive outcomes of high group cohesion. For example, group members definitely have higher satisfaction in cohesive groups (Dobbins & Zaccaro, 1986). Members choose to remain in cohesive groups longer than in less cohesive groups when a choice is available (Dobbins & Zaccaro, 1986). This is important news for compa- nies that wish to lower expensive turnover or for school districts that want to minimize teacher attrition.

Members of cohesive groups less often report feeling lonely or isolated (Toseland & Rivas, 2005). Cohesive groups appear to provide a buffer against stress and thus may improve individual mental and physical health. Collective identity is stronger in more cohesive groups than in less cohesive groups too (Dobbins & Zaccaro, 1986; Toseland & Rivas, 2005). It is unclear which dimensions of cohesion—interpersonal, structural, or organiza- tional—are responsible for many of these positive outcomes. The increases in feelings of security and attachment among members suggest that the dimension of interpersonal ties plays an important role here.

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 123 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Good Stuff”

If a group is cohesive and its norms align with the larger organization, that group tends to be productive. The critical question is: How can companies achieve this winning combination?

Autonomy

Research on influence and persuasion (Cialdini, 1998) indicates that if groups are allowed some choice in setting their own goals, their commitment to the organization is higher than if decisions are made top-down about group tasks. Providing input also raises a group’s commitment to the larger collectivity. When Marathon Oil rebranded, for instance, employees were consulted about the new logo’s appearance and what it stood for. This engages these employees in such a way that they have a stake in that brand and, of course, its success. Marathon not only demonstrated that it cared what its workers thought, it recognized that the perspective of those workers was a resource of consider- able value.

Representation

Including representatives of groups in decision making for the entire organization also builds commitment. It is important to note that group representation and input must be genuine, and more than simply token. Group representatives must be taken seri- ously by upper management and must exercise at least some control over decisions for this kind of participation to work. For instance, upper management may ask its employees for suggestions about how to save energy in its various operations. Tak- ing those suggestions seriously, and implementing those that are genuinely valuable, shows employees that they are taken seriously (as well as saves the company energy costs). Ignoring those suggestions—particularly very good ones—tells employees that regardless of how valuable their input might be, they will not be listened to, again lead- ing to a more negative attitude among those employees. The next time management asks for input, its workers may regard the request as mere lip service, and may well not take it seriously.

Large companies may have many departments such as marketing, advertising, account- ing, shipping and receiving, manufacturing, human resources, and strategic planning. Upper management may decide to allow each department to have more authority and responsibility for creating budgets, hiring personnel, designing workflow, and acquiring and allocating resources. In allowing more autonomy within these departments on an organizational level, management might be able to foster higher levels of cohesion and greater outcomes.

We might take a midsize tool-making company as an example. Subgroups in this com- pany include those responsible for tool production, tool improvement, research and development of new products, shipping, accounting, and others. Effectively organized, each group becomes a team when it is given a large amount of responsibility for its indi- vidual operations. As a team, it has a stake in its efficiency and productivity, and shares in the rewards it receives as a result of its success. This gives each member of the team a stake in the product and in the both the team and the larger organization, leading to a better work environment and, quite possibly, a more successful company overall.

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 124 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Bad Stuff”

Enforcement

Highly cohesive groups can enforce group norms—whatever they may be—far more effec- tively than less cohesive groups. Individual internal pressures to conform are greater in very cohesive groups (Reilly, 2001). Because people value their membership in these groups, they are willing to adjust their behaviors to group standards. Even if there is initial “storming” and conflict (Tuckman, 1965), if the group “gels,” a “norming” period follows and members conform. However, external pressures from the group on the individual are greater too. Cohe- sive groups put more pressure on deviants to conform to group norms than less cohesive groups do. We can see this from early on in grade school, by peer pressure on what to wear, what to eat, who to develop friendships with, and so on. A “tight” group may well exclude anyone who doesn’t conform to its standards. While the criteria involved may become more subtle and more sophisticated among adults, the logic of the situation can be quite similar.

Individual identity may be more stifled and restricted in highly cohesive groups. Because members are typically closer to one another, they may feel an investment in how you look, dress, or talk. If you try to change aspects of your personal identity—even in a positive direction, such as becoming more physically fit—you may find to your surprise that other group members ignore, criticize, or otherwise undermine your attempts at improvement. This phenomenon is not unusual in families, youth peer groups, or businesses when members lose weight, change their style of dress, or attend college for more education. However, once again, if group goals are positive and benefit the larger organization, the individual who conforms, even if initially uncomfortable about doing so, can benefit. But as we will see, such conformity can also have significant drawbacks.

6.4 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Bad Stuff” We already know that particular group goals may be damaging, even deadly, to indi- vidual members. Recall from the chapter introduction the loyal German soldiers, the Japa- nese pilots, and the followers of Jim Jones, who were willing to die for their country or community. However, the processes of high group cohesion can have harmful effects, even if the goals of the group are far from deadly.

Despite some very basic negative research findings (Friedman & Jacks, 1969) from as far back as 50 years ago, there is still a persistent tendency for researchers, coaches, and com- panies to see the outcomes of group cohesion as almost entirely constructive. It is not clear why such a positive bias around the concept of group cohesion occurs. Perhaps our own personal experiences in cohesive groups blur our professional judgment. Perhaps when positive outcomes occur, they are just so enriching that we overlook the less beneficial effects of group cohesion. Despite these perceptual blinkers, negative effects of cohesion are plentiful. Not only that, when the harmful effects of group cohesiveness occur, they tend to be spectacularly bad.

It’s unfortunate, but almost certainly the identical dynamics that were described above that produce many of the “good” outcomes in groups also produce the “bad” outcomes in groups. The major culprits are the desire among group members to remain in the group and to please one another. These attractions are what give groups an enhanced ability to influence members and enforce conformity, for good or for ill.

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 125 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Bad Stuff”

Pluralistic Ignorance

Because individuals want to be liked, to continue to belong, and to get along with other members, cohesive groups can tend toward surface—sometimes superficial—harmony. To avoid confrontation and other forms of ill will, members will publicly agree with each other even when they privately disagree. This apparent accord can lead to a phenomenon called pluralistic ignorance. Although a group majority may agree with them, the behav- ior of a vocal minority—with silence from the majority who disagree—means that those taking what is in fact a majority position may feel outnumbered. Each member believes that he or she is the lone, quiet dissenter in an otherwise unified collectivity. Group deci- sions may reflect these misperceptions, leading to decisions that end up rendering most members silent but unhappy.

Scapegoating and Aggression

Even if a brave member dares to speak up in opposition, cohesive groups can be much cru- eler toward “deviants” than less unified groups. Scapegoating, hostility, and aggression are more common and more severe toward deviants in higher cohesion groups. Indeed, the tighter the group, the more likely those who do not fit the group’s criteria, will be excluded. In this case, the unity of the group may function to prevent important critical and dissenting voices from being heard; indeed, such voices may be omitted altogether. This may well not be to the group’s advantage.

Self-Censorship

If they remain in the group, deviants tend to become isolated due to the actions of the other members. One possibility, of course, is that the deviant changes his or her mind toward the apparent majority opinion and will be welcomed as a “prodigal” (Schachter,

Management Connections Creating Cohesion

You are in charge of human resources for an engineering company in Georgia that has recently bought out a small, but valuable, Mexican engineering firm. As part of the buyout arrangement, about a dozen upper-level managers and 10 workers with a great deal of seniority will be moving to your Georgia office. Most speak English well; some of them have no accent, some have a more noticeable accent.

Your company has approximately 100 employees, many of whom have worked for you for many years. Your employees interact well, form a very cohesive group, and have very little conflict.

Your boss has told you that you will need to develop strategies and techniques to make sure the Mexican employ- ees feel comfortable in the workplace, and feel part of the team as quickly as possible. In part, this is to make for a more comfortable work environment; but these new employees have a great deal of experience and informa- tion that is a very valuable resource for your company to access and utilize.

How do you go about doing what your boss wants you to do? Name some specific strategies you might try to make the new workers feel part of the team. How do you prevent them from detracting from the already-present employee cohesiveness? How can you develop ways of making sure the new workers add to workplace unity? What challenges do you foresee having to overcome, in order to satisfy your boss’s demands?

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 126 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Bad Stuff”

1951). However, deviants may also decide to leave the group (Curseu et al., 2011). When group members are aware of severe sanctions toward deviants, they may engage in self- censorship, either avoiding contentious topics entirely or carefully monitoring their verbal responses. Self-censorship means the group will lose the advantages of potentially useful information.

For example, suppose a manufacturing team is heavily invested in terms of effort and resources in a new project. Everyone speaks glowingly of the new product. However, one of the more experienced designers realizes there are some critical flaws in its design. Will she speak up? If the consequences of disagreement appear harsh, for example, social isolation or even a lackluster annual evaluation, our designer may hesitate to make any comments and the group loses the value of her expertise.

Groupthink

Irving Janis (1996) used the term groupthink to describe a process in which strong group cohesion can lead to a cycle of bad decision making. Janis proposed that bad decisions could occur when group members are exposed only to limited and one-sided information, typically information that supports decisions the group has already decided to take. Due to strong in-group cohesion, opposition to poor decisions from within may be effectively stifled. Opposition from outside the group is never examined. Historic disasters such as the 1986 explosion of the spaceship Challenger occur, leaving group members to shake their heads, wondering what went wrong.

Janis explored several of the mechanisms he believes contribute to groupthink. The sur- face harmony resulting from strong cohesion and pluralistic ignorance, especially when combined with perceptions of group enemies in the environment, can contribute to group insularity or insulation. In insular groups, members tend to interact primarily with each other and they avoid cross-group contacts. Once an imposed apparent group homogene- ity emerges, the group has closed itself off from cross-fertilization of ideas or corrective input for its mistakes. Further, since members largely interact with one another, they may begin to feel invulnerable and superior to those who are not group members. The more insulated the group, the less corrective feedback they receive, the greater the tendency for the group to feel invulnerable, and the greater the possibility of poor decisions.

Given these self-protective strategies, members can propose extreme ideas and face nei- ther challenges nor corrections from other group members or from outsiders. Problems with the group’s proposed solutions may be ignored or glossed over. Group failures become interpreted as caused by problems in the outside environment or by enemies and the dismal cycle continues.

Because groupthink has affected policy decisions, such as the 1961 U.S. invasion of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba or the Challenger explosion in which engineer concerns about the O-rings in the rocket were minimized by the group, considerable research about it has used cre- ative forms of archival research or content analyses rather than laboratory experiments with undergraduates. Philip Tetlock’s (1992) research informs us that while strong group cohesion fosters groupthink, it is not the sole guilty party. An overly directive group leader can dampen attempts by other group members to point out any problems with the leader’s course of action. Another critically important aspect is a structure that discourages, or at

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 127 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Bad Stuff”

least fails to actively encour- age, interaction between the group and its outside environment.

The first sign that groupthink has caused serious problems within the collectivity may be when members begin to leave the group without signifying their intentions or even giv- ing an explanation. Fewer and fewer people attend group meetings and, in voluntary organizations, the group cof- fers may begin to dip precipi- tously low. Group productivity may steeply drop, and outside authorities such as bosses are called in to investigate. In the meantime the remaining mem- bers refuse to even admit that there are any problems with the group or its decisions.

Groupthink is a phenomenon that business managers, chief executive officers, and owners must learn about and guard against. The consequences of this kind of decision making can not only spell financial doom for a company, but damage it severely enough in reputation or member attrition that recovery can become exceptionally difficult. A group of investors may convince each other, for instance, that a given stock is a steal. The members of the group invest a great deal of money, convincing each other that it is a wise investment. The groupthink on display here not only motivates each of them to continue to invest, their mutual commitment prevents them from recognizing as early as they might that the stock is a terrible investment, something they learn when they lose all their money. Markets have a remarkable ability, after all, to demonstrate the negative consequences of groupthink.

To combat groupthink means encouraging employees to give honest feedback—and not penalizing them for it. It means the business must make the effort to become thoroughly engaged with its environment and to avoid isolation. It should ensure that key employees are active in civic and professional organizations and stay abreast of new developments.

Cohesion and Productivity: Another Look

As noted earlier, the valences of group cohesion outcomes heavily depend on just what the group norms are. While studying group productivity after World War II, group dynami- cists discovered to their considerable surprise that productivity outcomes for cohesive groups tended to be polarized, that is, they were either very productive or very unproduc- tive in terms of the standards the experimenters created. Thus they discovered that the average productivity of cohesive groups was quite close to that of far less cohesive groups (examples of the diverse findings: Stogdill, 1972; Sypher, 1977; Vaisman, 1977).

In fact, if group goals diverge from organizational goals, not only may the group as a whole become less productive by organizational standards, it may also reject those members

Was the stock market crash that set off the Great Recession a product, in part, of groupthink on the part of investors in the subprime mortgage market?

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 128 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Bad Stuff”

who are industrious by organizational standards. Students may remember how the “class brain” could be ostracized in particular courses.

Why have there been such discrepant results of how group cohesion influences productiv- ity? Highly cohesive groups who valued social interaction spent their time on chitchat and social events, not on the group task imposed by the experimenter. Everyone got along well; everyone liked everyone else a great deal. Given the interpersonal ties definition of cohe- sion, these groups were obviously quite cohesive. However, group task generativity was poor. Haven’t we all experienced work groups like this? The social aspects of the group are great; the only problem is that not a whole lot of work gets done. A study by Salary.com (“Employee engagement,” n.d.) indicates, for instance, these data about productivity losses:

1. Surfing the Internet for personal use accounted for 44.7 percent of all lost productivity.

2. Socializing with co-workers accounted for 23.4 percent. 3. Conducting personal business (technical and nontechnical) accounted for

6.8 percent. 4. Spacing out accounted for 3.9 percent. 5. Running errands away from the premises accounted for 3.1 percent.

Certainly 23.4 percent is a significant loss of productivity; an effective manager may want to develop strategies for minimizing this kind of socializing without lessening the cohe- siveness among fellow employees. After what we discussed earlier, this also calls for a delicate balancing act.

Consider youth gangs as another example. These may be highly cohesive, but their goals may conflict with those of the larger society including their families, schools, and neighbor- hoods. If the gang is highly cohesive, the group will be able to enforce its goals even if these prove deadly (for example, gang warfare) or detrimental to particular individuals, such as severe injury or even a prison sentence.

As should be clear, just because a group is cohesive and tightly knit does not mean it is promoting positive outcomes. Other factors must be considered in determining the value

of the group and its potential for becoming a productive, effective team. A good man- ager will develop techniques to foster unity and cohesive- ness among team members and employees as a whole. Several such techniques have been discussed above. At the same time, the manager must be aware of some of the draw- backs of cohesion, including generating a work environ- ment not conducive to pro- ductive work, and making it difficult to hear valuable but critical dissenting voices.

Can cohesion within the group be too much of a good thing? Some reports say excessive socializing is one of the biggest contributors to productivity losses.

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 129 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6What Did We Discover?

Summary Interpersonal, structural, and organizational factors all impact the feelings of cohesion or togetherness groups experience. Teams and groups are related, but they are not quite the same thing. Team cohesion can be deliberately fostered, but can also be damaged by things like social loafing. Cohesion, in general, can have positive outcomes, but also has the potential for a large number of bad outcomes. Cohesion can result in issues like plural- istic ignorance, scapegoating and aggression, self-censorship, and groupthink.

What Did We Discover? • Groups and teams can find cohesion on the basis of a number of different factors,

including shared goals and sharing the same physical space. • A number of things can help reinforce group and team unity, such as members

sharing common goals and being given increased responsibility. • Any group or team confronts a number of challenges to cohesiveness, including

too much reliance on familiarity and teams becoming unified around their exclud- ing others.

• Teams and groups are distinct in how they are structured and in how the members of each take responsibility for the goals they seek to accomplish.

Business Application Exercises

1. How can a manager make sure dissenting voices are not excluded as simply “deviant” and thus not heard?

2. Describe a situation you have been in when critical or dissenting views were a welcome part of the work environment. What were the benefits of this occurring?

3. Explain why a work environment that is not conducive to dissenting voices may end up being harmed. If you have been in this situation, describe it.

4. Describe someone you have worked with, or gone to school with, who prevented a team or group you were in from being as productive as it might have been. What kinds of things might have been in place to prevent, or at least minimize, this?

5. Describe a collection of people you have worked with before. Would you character- ize that collection as a team or a group? Explain why you chose the term you did.

Key Terms

common group goals

emotional arousal

group

group homogeneity

group insularity

groupthink

interdependent goals

interpersonal sources of group cohesion

Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 130 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6What Did We Discover?