Groups in Organizations: Fads, Findings, Frontiers

Robert DipboyeRice University

Fads: Teams were Once Ignored But Are Now “All the Rage”

1

A Recent “Nonscientific” Survey of Executives

5

General Feelings About

Teams

Agree Neutral Disagree

I prefer to work with

others in a team rather than

work alone.

50.9% 33% 21.3%

I like it when the team

members do things on their

own rather than work with

others all the time

49% 22.6% 26.4%

I prefer to do my own

work and let others do

theirs.

34% 34% 32.2%

I believe teamwork can

produce better results than

individual efforts.

83.9% 9.4% 4.7%

Positive Experiences in Teams Almost

Always/

Often

The team recognized the unique expertise

and knowledge that each member could

contribute to their tasks

61.3%

The team stimulated members to put more

effort into their tasks than they would

have if they had worked alone.

61.3%

The team developed clear objectives and

strategies for its work

56.6%

The team as a whole rose to a level of

performance that exceeded the

performance of any single member.

48.1%

Members of the team thought more

carefully and analytically when working

in the team than they would have working

alone.

46.2%

Negative Experiences in Teams Almost

Always/

Often

Members of the team wasted time 45.3%

Conflicts occurred among some members

of the team

43.4%

Members of the team went along with the

majority opinion even when it went

against their better judgment

56.6%

The team had individuals who slacked off

and didn’t do their fair share of the work.

33%

Members of the team got stuck in routine

ways of doing things and didn’t consider

new approaches and ideas

29.2%

Members of the team looked out for their

personal interests and failed to put the

organization’s interests first

23.6%

Members of the team failed to take

personal responsibility for the decisions of

the team.

18.8%

What is This Thing Called “Group”? “Groups are open and complex systems that

interact with the smaller systems (I.e., the members) embedded within them and the larger systems (e.g., organizations) within which they are embedded. Groups have fuzzy boundaries that both distinguish them from and connect them to their members and their embedding contexts.”

Arrow, McGrath, and Berdahl, 2000, p. 34

6

What Are the Types of Groups? Work groups

Task forces Crews Teams

Clubs Economic clubs Social clubs Activity clubs

7

How Do Groups Perform? Group Productivity = Group

Potential - Process Loss Ivan Steiner

Example From an Interview Study Validity of interviewer 2:

r (118) = .25, p < .01

Validity of panels: With interviewer 2: r (118)

= .24, p < .01 Without interviewer 2: r

(299) = .05, ns.

Why Might Groups Fail to Meet Their Potential?

Technical knowledge, skills, and abilities

Interpersonal knowledge, skills, and abilities

Problems of KSAOs that Members Bring to Task

Groups are prone to jump immediately to solutions without defining the problem, setting objectives, generating alternatives, planning task strategies, or assessing the resources they can apply to the problem

Problems of Group Strategy

Social loafing/free riding Focused too much on self

and not enough on task Negative attitudes toward

groups and lack of motivation to work in groups

Problems of Member Motivation

Analyzed 61 estimates of effect of group heterogeneity on group performance

Overall correlation of .0758 (SER = .0149)

Evidence that task type and heterogeneity type moderated the relationship

Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Group Heterogeneity on Group Performance

Findings for Personal Heterogeneity Performance tasks:

r = .0186 Intellective tasks:

r = .1324 Decision making

r = .1269 Creative

r = .1660 Mixed motive

r = .1565

Findings for Technical Heterogeneity

Intellective tasks: r = .0501

Decision making r = -.0409

Creative r = .1596

Size Moderated Effects of Heterogeneity

Large groups, technical heterogeneity: r = .2961

Small groups, technical heterogeneity: r = -.0424

Large groups , personal heterogeneity: r = .0348

Small groups, personal heterogeneity r = .0800

Heterogeneity and Top Management Team Performance

Firm performance and technical heterogeneity: r = ..0263

Firm performance and personal heterogeneity: r = -.1069

Firm creativity and technical heterogeneity: r = .1185

Firm creativity and personal heterogeneity: r = -.0058

Groups of three performed three tasks: history, sports, literature

Half groups spent about five minutes discussing and ranking the relative expertise of members: Expert Identification

Other half spent five minutes discussing why they came to Rice: No expert identification

An Experimental Evaluation of a Simple Intervention to Improve Group Assessment of Resources

With expert identification M = 5.19

Without expert identification M = 4.82

F (1,58) = 4.12, p < .05

Effects of Expert Identification on Satisfaction of Group Members with Group’s Decision

With expert identification M = 2.26 (range: -2 to +8)

Without expert identification M = .84 (range: - 5 to +8)

F (1,58) = 5.29, p < .05

Effects of Expert Identification on Performance Gain of Group Over Potential Performance

An Experimental Evaluation of Holding Members Accountable

Participants were Assigned to One Cell of a 2 X 2 Factorial

Group vs Individual Condition: Believed they were part of a group or performed alone

High vs. Low accountability: Performance visibility and justification of the performance or anonymous performance and no justification

Task ability: High vs. low, participants above median were high task ability and those at or below the median were low task ability

Based on performance of the task prior to the experiment.

A Third Measured Factor

Findings Main effect of ability; high ability

members performed better than low ability members (F (1,56) = 14.49, p < .001)

Main effect of accountability ;accountable members had higher performance (F(1,56) = 5.08, p < .05)

3 way interaction of ability X accountability X ind vs group (F(1, 56) = 6.21, p < .05).

Three Way Interaction Suggests Use of Accountability as a Means of Reducing Social Loafing

Evidence of social loafing when people felt they were part of a group

Accountability eliminated social loafing in high ability group and led to social facilitation effect

Accountability did not affect social loafing in low ability group

An Experimental Evaluation of Focusing Attention on Task vs. Focusing Attention on Self

Participants assigned to 3 to 5 person groups

Performed Desert Survival Problem alone on three different trials

After each trial members received feedback of their total performance on the task after trials 1 and 2

After receiving individual feedback the members met as a group to discuss their answers

Participants assigned to task or ego-involvement condition

Ego-Involvement: We will evaluate you on the basis of

your interactions in the group. Among the personal characteristics that we will assess are decision making ability, social skill, and general leadership capabilities….We are interested in how well you do relative to others in the group. Try to do as well as you can in your performance of the task and in the group sessions.

Task-Involvement We know that everyone is capable of

doing well on this task if they are given sufficient time and opportunity to learn. We will ask you to perform this task several times, and we would like you to improve your performance. .. How well you do relative to others is not important. ..we are mainly concerned with how you personally improve in your performance over trials…Try to improve your performance as much as you can.

Findings.. Same Effects Were Found at Individual and Group Levels.

Task-involved participants performed better than ego-involved participants and improved to a greater extent across trials (F(2,40) = 4.08, p < .024.

The proportion of ego-involved participants who derogated the feedback (.23) was larger than the proportion of task involved participants who derogated the feedback (.02), 2 (1, 20) = 9.51, p < .01.

Derogation of Feedback

Relationship of Perceived and Actual Performance

There was a statistically significant relationship between perceived and actual performance for task-involved participants (r (47) = .377, p < .01) but not for ego-involved participants (r(47) = .067, p <.70).

Satisfaction with Performance “How satisfied would you be if

you personally attained the same level of performance in the next session?” Task-involved participants

said they would be less satisfied (M = 2.94) than ego-involved participants (M = 3.60), F(1,20) = 7.89, p <.05.

Interaction of goal-orientation and performance (F (1,81) = 3.88, p < .05).

Good performers talked a larger proportion of time (M = .29) than poor performers (M = .20) in task-involved conditions.

Poor performers talked about the same (M = .25) as good performers (M = .22) in the ego-involved conditions.

Time Spent Talking

Are These Process - Performance Linkages Limited to the Lab?

“Former theories may have been adequate for simple laboratory tasks, they are not adequate for the more complex, interdependent tasks in the organization….Group leaders may be focusing on internal variables like cohesiveness when they should be allocating more time to negotiating favorable objectives or promoting group outputs to top management.”

Gladstein, ASQ, 1984

Limitations of Previous Field Research on Process - Performance Linkages

The measure of group performance is often far removed from group process

Performance measures are often subjective

Group size in some studies is very small

Very little attention to possible moderating influence of group size… more often seen as a nuisance variable

Conducted with groups involved in an employee involvement program in a large utility

Objective of EIP was to generate ideas to improve productivity and reduce costs

Over 60 groups were formed and were trained in group problem solving

A Field Exploration that Improved on these Neglects

Variables Measured with Questionnaire

Internal Group Process: 35 items - strategy, effort, utilization, etc.

Success/Satisfaction: 10 items - self-perceived success, potency

Personal Benefits: 6 items - member evaluations of personal benefits from group

Management support: 4 items - support of group’s efforts

Group size: 56 groups ranging in size from 5 - 15

Functional area of group: line vs. support

Number of approved ideas: 0 - 59 ideas were approved by management at the end of the yearafter the survey was completed

Technical Heterogeneity: diversity of functional representation in the group

Other Variables

Return Rate

383 of 448 group members surveyed returned questionnaire for an 85% return rate

56 of 59 groups surveyed returned questionnaires for a 94% return rate

Regression of the Number of Approved Ideas on

Group size Technical Heterogeneity Perceived Management Support Perceived Personal Benefits of

Group Participation Internal Group Process

R square = .3693, p < .001 Group size:

Beta = .2413, p < .10 Heterogeneity:

Beta = .3987**, p < .01 Perceived management support:

Beta = -.1565, ns Perceived personal benefits:

Beta = -.4403*, p < .05 Internal group process:

Beta = .2024, ns

Group Size Moderated the Relation of Process to Productivity

The product of internal process and size was added at the sixth and last step of the above regression

Rsquare = .4172, p < .001 Beta for product of internal

process and size:

Beta = -.2516*, p < .05.

The number of approved ideas generated increased with improved internal process to a much greater extent in larger groups

Correlation of internal process with number of approved ideas was r = .53 (p<.01) in large groups; r = .12 (ns) in small groups.

Interpretation of this moderating effect

Personal Benefits to Productivity Management Support to

Productivity

Group Size Also Moderated the Relation of

As Group Size increased, the perceived benefits of the group was more strongly predictive of group productivity

As Group Size increased, the perceived management support was more strongly predictive of group productivity

The Nature of the Moderating Effects was Similar to that Found for Internal Process

Fads… Findings... Frontiers…

Conclusions

Fads They are annoying but can be a

source of knowledge and insight We need research of all types to

determine whether there is substance underlying what’s currently hot.

Group Process matters in predicting performance but perhaps not as much as perceived personal benefits

Greater technical heterogeneity of the group is conducive to higher group productivity

Group size is a crucial moderator of the effects of process, perceived benefits, and perceived management support

Findings

Taking seriously the fact that groups are systems

Identifying, measuring, and understanding group types and the types of group tasks and tools

The relationship is the ground, all else is figure.

Frontiers of Group Research