Group dynamics

Group Dynamics

Team Unicorn Poof

Jan Augustine Paterno-Yamsuan

Definition of a Group [Gordon, 2001]

In order to be considered a group 4 criteria must be met

Members of the group must see themselves as a unit

Group must provide rewards to its members Anything that happens to one member of the

group affects every other member Members of the group must share a common

goal

Multiple members who perceive themselves as a unit

2 people= dyad, 3= triad, 4-20= small group To be called a group members must see

themselves as a unit. They must know each other.

Group rewards

Membership must be rewarding for each individual in the group.

Corresponding Effects

Event that affects one member of a group will affect the other group members.

Common goals

Aim or purpose shared by members of a group

Reasons for Joining groups

Assignment- most common reason in the workplace.

Physical proximity- people tend to form groups with people who either live or work nearby.

Affiliation- leadership style in which the individual leads by caring about others and that is most effective in a climate of anxiety

Reasons for Joining groups- affiliation

One reason people join groups is to be near and talk to other people.

Research has shown that close proximity with co-workers increases job satisfaction.

Reasons for Joining groups -Identification

The need to associate ourselves with the image projected by other people, groups, or objects.

“basking in reflected glory” To promote loyalty to the organization

Reasons for Joining groups

Emotional support Assistance or help Common interests-common academic interests are

not as strong as social interests. Common goals- best example would be people who

join political parties. While they may have common interests, their primary purpose is to get a particular person or members of a particular party elected to office.

Factors affecting group performance

Group cohesiveness- extent to which members of a group like and trust one another, are committed to accomplishing a team goal, and share a feeling of group pride

Good group cohesiveness increases 1) productivity and efficiency 2) decision quality 3) member satisfaction 4) member interaction 5) employee courtesy

Factors affecting group performance

Group cohesiveness can also lower group performance, especially in a work setting. This is because you tend to care more about your co-workers needs than those of your customers. *loyalty*

Group cohesion is not always necessary for group success.

Employees in cohesive work groups will conform to a norm of lower production even though they are capable of higher performance.

Group Homogeneity

Homogeneous groups- groups whose members share the same characteristics

Heterogeneous groups- members share FEW similarities.

Slightly heterogeneous- FEW group members have different characteristics from the rest of the group

Group Homogeneity

When developing a group which composition will lead to the best group performance?

Research shows that the best working groups consist primarily of similar people but have a dissimilar person adding tension and a different vantage point.

Although group performance is best in slightly heterogeneous groups, the group member who is “different” may not have the same level of satisfaction as the rest of the group members.

Stability of Groups

Stability- extent to which the membership of a group remains constant over time. The greater the stability of a group, the greater the cohesiveness.

Isolation

Isolation- degree of physical distance of a group from other groups.

Groups that are located away from other groups tend to be highly cohesive

Outside Pressure

Outside pressure- amount of psychological pressure placed on a group by people who are not members of the group

Groups that are pressured by outside forces also tend to become highly cohesive

The response to outside pressure can be explained by the phenomenon of psychological reactance

Reactance- motive to protect or restore one’s sense of freedom. Reactance arises when someone threatens our freedom of action.

Group Size

Group size- number of members in a group Groups are most cohesive and perform best

when group size is small. Studies have shown that larger groups have

lower productivity *social loafing?*, less coordination and lower morale and are less active, less cohesive, and more critical than smaller group.

Group Size

Research suggests that groups perform best and have greatest member satisfaction when they consist of ~ 5 members.

Additive tasks- tasks for which the group’s performance is equal to the sum of the performances of each individual group member.

Each member’s contribution is important.

Group Size

Conjunctive tasks- task for which the group’s performance is dependent on the performance of the least effective group member.

Success is limited by the least effective member, therefore smaller group is usually best.

Group Size

Social impact theory- the addition of a group member has the greatest effect on group behaviour when the size of the group is small.

*Adding a 6th person to an already stable and cohesive versus adding a person to a group with a gazillion people*

Group Size

Research indicates that groups working through a computer behave differently from groups working face to face.

Computers= large groups appear to perform best and have the most satisfied members. Also, members whose opinion is in the minority are more likely to express opinions than when the group meets face to face. (anonymity?) These same minority group members are more persuasive when the group meets face to face.

Group status

Group status- esteem in which the group is held by people not in the group. The higher it is, the greater the group’s cohesiveness.

It is not important to ACTUALLY have high status, but it is important that the members BELIEVE they have high status.

Group Ability and Confidence

Groups whose members believe that their team can be successful both at a specific task [high team efficacy] and at tasks in general [high team potency] perform better than groups whose members aren’t as confident about their probability for success.

Personality of the group members.

Important factor that affects group performance

Meta-analysis results indicate that in general, groups whose members have task-related experience and score high in the personality dimensions of openness to experience and emotional stability [neuroticism] will perform better than groups whose members do not have these characteristics (Bell,2007).

Personality of the group members.

Groups working on intellectual tasks will do better if their group members are bright, and groups working on physical tasks will do better if their group members score high in the personality dimensions of conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness. (Bell, 2005)

*OCEAN* from Psych150

Communication Structure

Communication structure- manner in which members of a group communicate with one another.

Which communication structure is most effective? It depends on the situation and goals of the group because each structure has its advantages and disadvantages.

Chain, Centralized, circles & open

Group Roles

For a group to be successful, its members’ roles must fall into one of two categories: task oriented and social oriented.

Task-oriented roles include behaviours such as offering new ideas, coordinating activities, and finding new information.

Social-oriented roles involve encouraging cohesiveness and participation

Individual role- blocks group activities, calling attention to oneself, and avoiding group interaction.

Group Roles

Group members will often naturally assume roles on the basis of their individual personalities and experiences.

Presence of others: Social Facilitation and Inhibition

Norman Triplett- conducted a study in which children conducted a task either alone or while competing against other children. First study on social facilitation and social inhibition.

Social Facilitation(+) – positive effects that occur when a person performs a task in the presence of others.

Social Inhibition (-) – negative effects that occur when a person performs a task in the presence of others.

Presence of others: Social Facilitation and Inhibition Audience effects- effect on behaviour when one or

more people passively watch the behaviour of another person.

Strength of the effect of having an audience present is a function of at least three factors (Latane, 1981): audience’s size, its physical proximity to the person or group, and its status.

Meta-analysis results indicate that the presence of others increases performance in people who are extraverts and have high self-esteem and decreases performance in people with low self-esteem and who score high in neuroticism (Uziel, 2007)

Presence of others: Social Facilitation and Inhibition Coaction- effect on behaviour when two or more people are

performing the same task in the presence of each other. *running partners*

Shalley (1995) found that coaction decreased creativity and productivity.

Rockloff and Dyer (2007) found that gamblers larger bets and lost money when gambling near others than when gambling alone

Sommer, Wynes, and Brinkley (1992) when people shopped in groups, they spent more time in a store and purchased more goods when alone

De Castro and Brewer (1992) meals eaten in larger groups were 75% larger than those eaten when a person was alone.

Presence of others: Social Facilitation and Inhibition

Performance increases only when the task being performed is easy or well learned; performance decreases when the task is difficult or not well learned (Bond & Titus, 1983; Platania & Moran, 2001)

Mere presence: theory stating that the very fact that others happen to be present naturally produces arousal and thus may affect performance

Presence of others: Social Facilitation and Inhibition

Comparison- effect when an individual working on a task compares his or her performance with that of another person performing the same task. In some jobs, this comparison effect may increase competition and production quantity, whereas in other jobs comparison effects may cause employees to slow down to be in line with the working norm

Presence of others: Social Facilitation and Inhibition

Evaluation apprehension- the idea that a person performing a task becomes aroused because he or she is concerned that others are evaluating his or her performance.

Distracting- idea that social inhibition occurs because the presence of others provides a distraction that interferes with concentration.

Presence of others: Social Facilitation and Inhibition Social loafing- fact that individuals in a group often exert less

individual effort than they would if they were not in a group. Why does social loafing occur? One theory is that because group members realize that their

individual efforts will not be noticed, there is little chance of individual reward.

Free-rider theory- when things are going well, a group member realizes that his effort is not necessary and thus does not work as hard as he would if they were alone. Support for this theory comes from meta-analysis results showing that people don’t socially loaf when their individual inputs are unique and can’t be performed by other group members.

Presence of others: Social Facilitation and Inhibition

Sucker effect- social loafing occurs when a group member notices that other group members are not working hard and thus are “playing him for a sucker”. To avoid this situation, the individual lowers his work performance to match those of the other members. Does not explain the social loafing of other members.

Social loafing is an important variable to keep in mind; having employees work together on a project may not be as productive *HAHAHAHAHAHA* as having them work individually.

Presence of others: Social Facilitation and Inhibition

Social loafing can be reduced by evaluating employees on their individual contributions to the group (Karau & Williams, 1993), explaining the link between individual effort and group performance (Shepperd & Taylor, 1999), and rewarding those who achieve (George, 1995; Shepperd, 1993).

Individual dominance

When one member of a group dominates the other.

Groupthink

Groupthink- a state of mind in which a group is so concerned about its own cohesiveness that it ignores important information.

Members become so cohesive and like-minded that they make poor decisions despite contrary information that might reasonably lead them to other options (hubris?)

Group think most often occurs when the group

Groupthink

Is cohesive Is insulted from qualified outsiders Has an illusion of invulnerability, infallibility, or both Believes that it is morally superior to its adversaries Is under great pressure to conform Has a leader who promotes a favourite solution Has gatekeepers who keep information from other

group members

Groupthink Groupthink can be reduced in several ways The group leader should not state his own position

or beliefs until late in the decision-making process The leader should promote open discussion and

encourage group members to speak A group or committee can be separated into

subgroups to increase the chance of disagreement One group member can be assigned the role of

devil’s advocate Devil’s Advocate- group member who intentionally

provides an opposing opinion to that expressed by the leader or the majority of the group.

Individual versus Group Performance Nominal group- collection of individuals whose results are pooled

but who never interact with one another Interacting group- a collection of individuals who work together to

perform a task. Importance of the difference between nominal and interacting

groups can be found in a study by Liden et al. Managers, nominal groups of employees, and interacting groups

of employees read scenarios about a group member’s poor performance and then determine how the employee should be disciplined.

Interacting groups and managers decided on more severe levels of discipline than did the nominal groups.

Individual versus Group Performance Brainstorming- technique in which ideas are generated by people

in a group setting. Not that effective Group members are encouraged to say aloud any and all ideas

that come to mind and are not allowed to comment on the ideas until all have been given.

When research compares a brainstorming group’s creativity with that of a single individual, the brainstorming group will almost always be more creative

When comparing the number and quality of ideas created by nominal groups with the quality and ideas by an interacting group in a brainstorming session, the ideas of the nominal group are more creative and of higher quality then the ideas of the interacting group.

Individual versus Group Performance

DeRosa et al. found that electronic brainstorming groups outperform vis-à-vis interacting groups. The comparison with nominal groups is more complicated.

Electronic brainstorming groups and nominal groups appear to perform at equal levels when the groups are small, but electronic groups are superior when the group is large.

Individual versus Group Performance

Brophy (1996) found nominal groups to be most effective with a single brainstorming problem and interacting groups to be most effective with complex problems.

Davis and Harless (1996) interacting groups take better advantage of feedback and learning and thus outperform nominal groups.

Group polarization- tendency for groups to take extreme positions than the positions of individual members. Group members will shift their beliefs to a more extreme version of what they already believe individually. If individual group members are on the risky side, the group will make highly risky decisions. If, however, the individual group members are conservative or cautious, the group as a whole will be extremely cautious (Isenberg, 1986). *birds of the same feather, flock together?*

Teams

Devine et al.- a work team is a collection of three or more individuals who interact to provide organizational product, plan, decision, or service.

Work best in situations in which 1) job requires high level of employee interaction, 2)a team approach will simplify the job, 3) a team cannot do something an individual cannot, 4) there is time to create a team and properly train team members.

Teams Several factors must be considered before calling a

group of individuals a team. Identification- extent to which group members

identify with the team rather than with other groups. *Student council course reps*

Interdependence- extent to which team members need and rely on other team members

Power differentiation- extent to which team members have the same level of power and respect.

Social distance- extent to which team members treat each other in a friendly , informal manner *How we interact with Carby*

Teams

Conflict management tactics- team members respond to conflict by collaborating versus nonteam members respond by forcing and accommodating

Negotiation Process- teams negotiate in a win-win style vs nonteams where members negotiate so that they win and the other members lose

Teams Donnellon (1996) placed teams into one of five

categories Collaborative and emergent = true teams Nominal and doomed= nonteams Adversarial= somewhere in between true team and

nonteam Permanency- extent to which a team will remain

together or be disbanded after a task has been accomplished

Proximity- physical distance between people Virtual teams- teams that communicate through

email rather than face-to-face

Types of Teams

Work teams- groups of employees who manage themselves, design jobs, plan and schedule work, make work-related decisions, and solve work related problems

Parallel/Cross-functional teams- consists of representatives from various departments

Project teams- groups formed to produce onetime outputs such as creating a new product, installing a new software system, or hiring a new employee

Management teams- coordinate, manage, advise, and direct employees and teams.

Tuckman’s Stages Forming- team members “feel out” the team

concept and attempt to make a positive impression. During the latter part of this stage, the team concentrates on clarifying its mission, determining the goals it wants to accomplish, deciding on the tasks to be done to accomplish their goals, setting rules and procedures, and developing alternate courses of action to reach their goals *more than one way to skin a cat*

Tuckman’s Stages

Storming- group members disagree and resist their team roles. On an individual level, members often become frustrated with their roles, show the stress of balancing their previous duties with their new team responsibilities, and question whether they have the ability to accomplish the goals set in the forming stage.

Tuckman’s Stages

Norming- teams establish roles and determine policies and procedures. Members begin to acknowledge the reality of the team by accepting the team leader and working directly with other team members to solve difficulties.

Tuckman’s Stages

Performing- teams work toward accomplishing their goals. Members make innovative suggestions, challenge one another without defensive responses and participate at high levels.

Tuckman’s Stages

Adjourning- involves completing the task and breaking up the team.

Why teams don’t always work

The team is not a team Excessive meeting requirements Lack of empowerment Lack of skill Distrust of the team process Unclear objectives

Group Conflict

Conflict- psychological and behavioural reaction to a perception that another person is keeping you from reaching a goal, taking away your right to behave in a particular way, or violating the expectancies of a relationship.

One of the key components to conflict is perception *recall 180 lecture on how we create our own social worlds*

Dysfunctional conflict- conflict that keeps people from working together, lessens productivity, spreads to other areas, or increases turnover

Group Conflict

Functional Conflict- results in increased performance or better interpersonal relations

Types of Conflict

Interpersonal conflict- between two people Individual-group conflict – between an

individual and other group members Group-group conflict – between two or more

groups

Causes of Conflict

Competition for resources- occurs when the demand for resources is greater than the resources available

Task Interdependence- arises when the completion of a task by one person affects the completion of a task by another person

Jurisdictional ambiguity- caused by a disagreement about geographical territory or lines of authority

Communication barriers- physical, cultural, and psychological obstacles that interfere with successful communication and create a source of conflict.

Causes of Conflict

Belief system of individuals or groups- most likely to occur when individuals or groups believe that they

Are superior to other people or groups Have been mistreated by others Are vulnerable to others and are in harm’s way Cannot trust others Are helpless or powerless (Eidelson & Eidelson,

2003)

Causes of Conflict

Personality- relatively stable traits possessed by an individual

Types of Difficult people Tank- Control, task completion. Pushes, yells, gives orders,

intimidates. Don’t counterattack or offer excuses. Hold your ground.

Sniper- control, task completion. Uses sarcasm, criticizes, humiliates others. Call them on their sarcasm and have them explain what was really behind their comment

Know-it-all – control, task completion. Dominates conversations, doesn’t listen. Acknowledge their knowledge, make your statements appear as if they are in agreement

Whiner- perfection, task quality. Constantly complains. Focus their complaints on specifics and solutions

No person- perfection, task quality. Disagrees with everything. Don’t rush them or argue; acknowledge their good intentions

Types of Difficult people Nothing person- perfection, task quality. Doesn’t do anything. Be

patient and ask them open-ended questions. Yes person- approval, being liked. Agrees to everything. Talk

honestly and let the person know it is safe to disagree with you Maybe person- approval, being liked. Won’t commit or make a

decision. Help them learn a decision-making system, and then reassure bout the decisions they make

Grenade-attention, being appreciated. Throws tantrums. Don’t show anger, acknowledge their complaint, and give them a chance to cool down.

Friendly sniper- attention, being appreciated. Use jokes to pick on people. Give them attention when they are not making fun of you.

Types of Difficult people

Think they know It all- attention, appreciated. Exaggerates, lies, gives advice. Give them attention and ask them for specifics, don’t embarrass them.

Conflict Styles

Avoiding style- pretending it doesn’t exist. Ok with minor and infrequent conflicts.

Withdrawal- one of the parties removes him/herself from the situation

Triangling- an employee discusses a conflict with a third party such as a friend or supervisor. In doing so, the employee hopes that the third party will talk to the second party and that the conflict will be resolved without the need for the two parties to meet

Conflict Styles

Accommodating style- a person who tends to respond to conflict by giving in to the other person

Forcing style- responds to conflict by always trying to win

Winning at all costs- one side seeks to win regardless of the damage to the other side

Collaborating style- both sides get what they want Compromising style- an individual allows each side

to get some of what it wants

Conflict Styles

Negotiation and bargaining- a method of resolving conflict in which two sides use verbal skill and strategy to reach an agreement

Least acceptable result (LAR)- lowest settlement that a person is willing to accept in a negotiated agreement

Maximum supportable position (MSP)- highest possible settlement that a person could reasonably ask for and still maintain credibility in negotiating a agreement

Conflict Styles

Seltz and Modica’s (1980) indicators that tell when a negotiation is going to end

Number of counterarguments is reduced Position of the two sides appear close

together Other side talks about final arrangements Other side appears willing to begin putting

things into writing

Resolving Conflict Dispute- situation when two parties do not agree Cooperative problem solving- method of resolving

conflict in which two sides get together to discuss a problem and arrive at a solution

Third party intervention- neutral party is asked to resolve a conflict

Mediation- method of resolving conflict in which a neutral third party is asked to help the two parties reach an agreement

Arbitration- method of resolving conflicts in which a neutral third party is asked to choose which side is correct.