Prentice Hall, 2001 Chapter 8 1

Defining and Classifying Groups

FormalFormalDepartmentsDepartments

Task GroupsTask Groups

Interest GroupsInterest Groups

Friendship GroupsFriendship GroupsInformalInformal

Prentice Hall, 2001 Chapter 9 2

Cross-Cross-FunctionalFunctional

Self-Self-ManagedManaged

Problem-Problem-SolvingSolving

VirtualVirtual

Types ofTypes ofTeamsTeams

Prentice Hall, 2001 Chapter 8 3

The ResourcesThe Resourcesof Group Membersof Group Members

Knowledge,Knowledge,Skills, andSkills, andAbilitiesAbilities

PersonalityPersonalityCharacteristicsCharacteristics

Prentice Hall, 2001 Chapter 8 4

Stages of Group DevelopmentStages of Group Development

Prestage I Stage IForming

Stage IIStorming

Stage IIINorming

Stage IVPerforming

Stage VAdjourning

Characteristics of Effective Teams

• Common goal– Defined & accepted mission/objective

• Shared leadership– Based upon expertise

• Civilized disagreements– Centered around ideas and methods, not people

Characteristics of Effective Teams (cont.)

• Listening– Questioning, paraphrasing, summarizing

• Participation– Everyone is encouraged to be involved and

share relevant knowledge• Self-assessment

– Pay attention to group process• How well are we functioning?

Prentice Hall, 2001 Chapter 8 7

Punctuated-Equilibrium Model

Time(Low)

(High)

First Meeting

Phase 1

Phase 2

Transition

Completion

A B(A+B)/2

Perf

orm

ance

Prentice Hall, 2001 Chapter 8 8

PerformancePerformance

GroupNorms

AppearanceAppearance

ResourcesResources

Development of Norms

• Organizational stories– Bill Gates: An employee was leaving work at

8:00pm, Bill says “only working ½ a day?”• Founders Values

– Nordstrom employee handbook• Responses to significant organizational

events– Johnson & Johnson and Tylenol recalls

Purpose of Norms

• Identifies desired behaviors or attitudes• Way of controlling behavior instead of explicit

formal rules • What happens when someone violates a

norm?– Deviant

• Pressures to get back in line– Isolate

• Loss of influence

Prentice Hall, 2001 Chapter 8 11

Effects of Group ProcessesEffects of Group Processes

PotentialGroup

Effectiveness

GroupEffectiveness

Process Losses

ConformityGroupthink

Social Loafing

Process Gains

Synergy

Prentice Hall, 2001 Chapter 8 12

Conformity to Group NormsConformity to Group Norms

X A B C

Studies by Solomon Asch

Issues Raised by Asch & Milgram Studies

• Group pressures to conform– What percentage of people conformed in the

Milgram study and shocked to the highest level?

– Percentage conforming in the Asch study?• What happened when people wrote down

responses?• Organizational implications?

– Methods of voting

Influencing the Majority Opinion Holders

• Persuasion techniques– Be positive and tactful in tone– Uncover the reasoning & logic behind positions

• Ask questions/challenge the assumptions & reasoning– Do not argue from position

• “I don’t know”– Consider what type of evidence is most relevant to

those you are trying to persuade• Facts & figures• Testimonials, personal experience

Group Decision Making

• Brainstorming– Group members are physically present in a “freewheeling”

idea generation process• All ideas are encouraged and are not to be critiqued

• Nominal group technique– Face to face meeting, all individual ideas are presented

with the goal of making a decision by the end of the meeting

• Electronic meeting– Ideas are presented, discussed, and voted on anonymously

via computer

Social Loafing

• Tendency to exert LESS effort when working in a group than when working alone

• Why does this happen?– Diffusion of responsibility– If you see others working less hard or not

contributing, people may attempt to reestablish equity by reducing work effort & productivity

Social Loafing Issues

• Methods to reduce its occurrence– Make individual contributions identifiable

• Hold individuals accountable– Make the receipt of group-based rewards contingent

upon individual contributions (GE info systems gainsharing plan)

• Social loafing tends to be a cultural phenomenon– Individualism versus collectivism (group is the

focus)• USA versus Japan

Cohesion

• Degree to which members are attracted to the group and are motivated to stay in the group

• Factors that generate cohesion– Common goal– Prior success– External threats &/or competition (“enemy”)– Difficult initiation or difficult to be a member– Time spent together & increased interaction

Prentice Hall, 2001 Chapter 8 19

High Productivity

Moderate Productivity

Moderate to LowProductivity

LowProductivity

CohesivenessPe

rfor

man

ce N

orm

s

High Low

Cohesiveness-Productivity RelationshipCohesiveness-Productivity Relationship

High

Low

Cohesion & Effective Group Decision Making

• Inverted U with effectiveness on the vertical and cohesion on the horizontal– When cohesion is too high, threat of groupthink

exists– When cohesion is too low, decisions may not

be made as group members are still “storming”

Groupthink

• When group members striving for agreement (norm for unanimity), fail to realistically appraise alternative courses of action– A means for a group to protect its positive

image (extremely high in cohesion)

Groupthink video

• Identify factors that may lead to groupthink

• Identify “symptoms” of groupthink

• Identify methods to minimize groupthink

• After the video, take 5 minutes and write a response to the following 2 questions:– In your own words, why do you think the

shuttle was launched?– Why did NASA seem to readily accept Morton

Thiokol’s reversal on the O-ring problem?

Antecedents of Groupthink

• Factors that may lead to groupthink– High levels of cohesion– Stressful decision-making context

• External pressure• Tight budgets• Recent failures

Symptoms of Groupthink

• Illusion of unanimity (false consensus)– Silence implies agreement

• “I’m not going to call for a vote, I think we are all in agreement here”

• “We’ve decided..”

• Self-censorship– Not speaking up (feeling of tension caused by pressure

to be silent & internally wanting to speak up) • “I had a few objections, but since everybody seems

committed, I won’t bring them up.”

Symptoms of Groupthink (cont)

• Illusion of invulnerability & Rationalization– “Our strategy has worked in the past, odds are

it will again”• Mindguards

– “No need for you to be at the meeting; I’ll summarize your concerns for the board”

Ways to Minimize Groupthink

• Avoid isolating the group– Bring in outside experts

• Critical evaluators / Devil’s advocate– Role is to question assumptions and uncontested

information• Open climate

– Leader invites and accepts divergent thinking• Avoid being directive

– Strong leaders speak last or sometimes not at all