par t three R I C A R D , Group and Social Processes 10 Group Dynamics A 11 Developing and D Leading Effective Teams R 12 Individual and Group Decision Making I 13 Managing Confl Eict and Negotiating N N E 1 9 0 2 T S kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 265 12/6/11 5:09 PM chapter 10 Group Dynamics R I C A Learning Objectives R D When you finish studying the material in this chapter, you should be able to: , LO.1 Identify the four sociological criteria of a group, and discuss the impact of social networking on group dynamics. LO.5 A D of group development, and discuss the Describe the five stages in Tuckman’s theory threat of group decay. R I ambiguity. Distinguish between role conflict and role E Contrast roles and norms, and specify four reasons norms are enforced in N organizations. N Distinguish between task and maintenance E roles in groups. LO.6 Summarize the practical contingency management implications for group size. LO.7 Discuss why managers need to carefully handle mixed-gender task groups. LO.2 LO.3 LO.4 LO.8 LO.9 kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 266 1 9 0 four of its symptoms. Describe groupthink, and identify at least 2 Define social loafing, and explain how managers can prevent it. T S 12/6/11 5:09 PM How Can Managers Reduce the Pain of a Layoff? As part of a company-wide reduction, several managersR at an . . . [Intel factory in Hillsboro, Oregon,] lost jobs. An engineer who worked for Pat [McDonald, an IntelI executive], Sumit Guha, told me how “she recountedC the contributions of these employees in an open forum, A wishing them luck, acknowledging that these employees were being let go for no fault of their own, and we allR gave these employees a hand in appreciation of theirD contributions.” , Things got worse in early 2009 when Intel announced the factory would cease production at year’s end because it was using older technology—and approximatelyA one thousand workers would lose their positions. PatD not only expressed concern and compassion, she took R a stance that demonstrated she had her employees’ backs. Pat quickly announced to her team that althoughI output metrics would continue to be important, helping people get through the transition was a higher priority— especially finding affected employees new jobs inside and outside of Intel. Pat and her team not only provided extensive outplacement counseling and related services, they personally visited numerous local employers to campaign for new jobs for their people. Managers and employees emulated this behavior. For example, employees shared job search leads and helped each other prepare for interviews, even as they were vying for the same positions. . . . Pat’s emphasis on people and connection with them not only instilled calm, her priorities helped many find good new jobs. And plant performance didn’t suffer a bit; productivity, efficiency, and quality reached record levels in 2009.1 E N N E 1 9 0 2 T S kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 267 12/6/11 5:09 PM 268 Part Three Group and Social Processes Organizations, by definition, are collections of people constantly interacting to achieve something greater than individuals could accomplish on their own. Research consistently reveals the importance of social skills for both individual and organizational success. For example, a recent study of 1,040 managers employed by 100 manufacturing and service organizations in the United States found 15 reasons why managers fail in the face of rapid change. The top two reasons were “ineffective communication skills/practices” and “poor work relationships/ interpersonal skills.”2 Relationships do matter in the workplace, as demonstrated by Pat McDonald’s compassionate handling of the layoff at Intel. No surprise that Intel was number 51 on Fortune magazine’s 2011 list of the 100 best companies to work for, up from 98 the year before.3 Management, as defined in Chapter 1, involves getting things done with and through others. Experts say managers need to build social capital with four key social skills: social perception, impression management, persuasion and social R influence, and social adaptability (see Table 10–1).4 How polished are your soI improvement? Daniel Goleman recommends an cial skills? Where do you need expanded form of emotional intelligence he calls social intelligence, “being intelC ligent not just about our relationships but also in them.”5 For example, consider how this informal relationshipAevolved into both a win-win business relationship and a stronger community: R D A decade ago, Archie , Williams, the founder of a small printer-toner distribution company in the impoverished Boston neighborhood of Roxbury, happened to play a round of golf with Tom Stemberg, the founder and then chief executive of office supply mega-retailer Staples. Through 18 holes, the pair pitched, A putted, and chatted—and became fast friends. Soon, Stemberg started buying D company, Roxbury Technology. printer cartridges from Williams’s The deal turned out to be aRwin for both Staples and Roxbury—the company and the neighborhood. The office supply giant found a reliable supplier for an I got a partner that could distribute its goods naimportant product and Roxbury tionally. Stemberg soon became E a mentor to Williams’s company, helping with strategic planning, finance, and legal advice. Roxbury Technology is now a preN ferred supplier to Staples . . . [with nearly $17 million in annual sales, and] almost all of Roxbury’s 65 employees N live in the neighborhood or nearby.6 Example. E table 10–1 Key Social Skills Managers Need for Building Social Capital SOCIAL SKILL Social perception Impression management 1 9 DESCRIPTION Ability to perceive accurately the0 emotions, traits, motives, and 2 intentions of others T S TOPICAL LINKAGES IN THIS TEXT • • • • Individual differences, Chapters 5 and 6 Emotional intelligence, Chapter 5 Social perception, Chapter 7 Employee motivation, Chapters 8 and 9 Tactics designed to induce liking and a favorable first impression by others • Impression management, Chapter 15 Persuasion and social influence Ability to change others’ attitudes or behavior in desired directions • Influence tactics and social power, Chapter 15 • Leadership, Chapter 16 Social adaptability Ability to adapt to, or feel comfortable in, a wide range of social situations • Cultural intelligence, Chapter 4 • Managing change, Chapter 18 SOURCE: Columns 1 and 2 excerpted from R A Baron and G D Markman, “Beyond Social Capital: How Social Skills Can Enhance Entrepreneurs’ Success,” Academy of Management Executive, February 2000, table 1, p 110. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 268 12/6/11 5:09 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics 269 Back to the Chapter-Opening Case How did Intel’s Pat McDonald build social capital with the social skills listed in Table 10–1? Let us begin by defining the term group as a prelude to examining types of groups, functions of group members, social networking in the workplace, and the group development process. Our attention then turns to group roles and norms, the basic building blocks of group dynamics. Effects of group structure and member characteristics on group outcomes are explored next. Finally, three serious threats to group effectiveness are discussed. (This chapter serves as a foundation R for our discussion of teams and teamwork in the following chapter.) I C LO.1 Groups in the Social A Media Age Groups and teams are inescapable features of modern R life.7 College students are often teamed with their peers for class projects. Parents serve on community adviD sory boards at their local schools. Managers find themselves on product planning committees and productivity task forces. Productive, organizations simply cannot function without gathering individuals into groups and teams. But as personal experience shows, group effort can bring out both the best and the worst in people. A excitedly brainstorm and A marketing department meeting, where several people refine a creative new advertising campaign, can yield D results beyond the capabilities of individual contributors. Conversely, committees have become the butt ofRjokes (e.g., a committee is a place where they take minutes and waste hours; aIcamel is a horse designed by a committee) because they all too often are plagued by lack of direction and by E of groups and group proconflict. Modern managers need a solid understanding cesses to both avoid their pitfalls and tap their vast N potential. Moreover, the huge and growing presence of the Internet and modern communication technologies— N social relationships—is a with their own unique networks of informal and formal major challenge for profit-minded business managers. E Although other definitions of groups exist, we draw from the field of sociology and define a group as two or more freely interacting individuals who share collec10–1 illustrates how the tive norms and goals and have a common identity.8 Figure 1 four criteria in this definition combine to form a conceptual whole. Organizational 9 psychologist Edgar Schein shed additional light on this concept by drawing instructive distinctions between a group, a crowd, and0an organization: TO THE POINT What can managers do about social networking technology blurring the line between formal and informal groups? 2 Example. The size of a group is thus limited by theTpossibilities of mutual interaction and mutual awareness. Mere aggregates of people do not fit this definition S because they do not interact and do not perceive themselves to be a group even if they are aware of each other as, for instance, a crowd on a street corner watching some event. A total department, a union, or a whole organization would not be a group in spite of thinking of themselves as “we,” because they generally do not all interact and are not all aware of each other. However, work teams, committees, group Two or more freely interacting people with shared norms and goals and a common identity. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 269 12/6/11 5:09 PM 270 Part Three Group and Social Processes figure 10–1 Four Sociological Criteria of a Group Common identity 4 R Collective norms I 2 1 C Two or more freely interacting A individuals R D , 3 Collective goals subparts of departments, cliques, and various other informal associations among organizational members would fit this definition of a group.9 Go to www.mcgrawhillconnect.com for an interactive exercise to test your knowledge of the four sociological criteria of a group. A D Take a moment now to think of various groups of which you are a member. Does each of your groups satisfy theRfour criteria in Figure 10–1? I E Groups Formal and Informal N assigned to groups, to accomplish various purIndividuals join groups, or are poses. If the group is formed N by a manager to help the organization accomplish its goals, then it qualifies as a formal group. Formal groups typically wear such E committee, corporate board, or task force. An labels as work group, project team, informal group exists when the members’ overriding purpose of getting together is friendship or common interests. Formal and informal groups may or may not 1 overlap in the workplace. For instance, 23 percent of 1,050 women employees who had planned weddings did not9plan to invite co-workers to their wedding.10 Also, for better or for worse, family-run businesses and hiring family and friends can create overlapping formal and0 informal groups.11 2 T Groups Functions of Formal S Researchers point out that formal groups fulfill two basic functions: organizational and individual. The various functions are listed in Table 10–2. Complex combinations of these functions can be found in formal groups at any given time. For example, consider what Mazda’s new American employees experienced when they spent a month working in Japan before the opening of the firm’s Flat Rock, Michigan, plant: Example. After a month of training in Mazda’s factory methods, whipping their new Japanese buddies at softball and sampling local watering holes, the Americans were fired up. . . . [A maintenance manager] even faintly praised the Japanese kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 270 12/6/11 5:09 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics table 10–2 271 Formal Groups Fulfill Organizational and Individual Functions ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTIONS INDIVIDUAL FUNCTIONS 1. Accomplish complex, interdependent tasks that are beyond the capabilities of individuals. 1. Satisfy the individual’s need for affiliation. 2. Generate new or creative ideas and solutions. 2. Develop, enhance, and confirm the individual’s self-esteem and sense of identity. 3. Coordinate interdepartmental efforts. 3. Give individuals an opportunity to test and share their perceptions of social reality. 4. Provide a problem-solving mechanism for complex problems requiring varied information and R assessments. 4. Reduce the individual’s anxieties and feelings of insecurity and powerlessness. I 5. Provide a problem-solving mechanism for C personal and interpersonal problems. A 6. Socialize and train newcomers. R SOURCE: Adapted from E H Schein, Organizational Psychology, 3rd ed (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980), pp 149–51. D , practice of holding group calisthenics at the start of each working day: “I didn’t 5. Implement complex decisions. think I’d like doing exercises every morning, but I kind of like it.”12 A D it wanted—interdependent While Mazda pursued the organizational functions teamwork, creativity, coordination, problem solving,Rand training—the American workers benefited from the individual functions of formal groups. Among those benI efits were affiliation with new friends, enhanced self-esteem, exposure to the Japanese social reality, and reduction of anxieties about working for a foreign-owned comE pany. In short, Mazda created a workable blend of organizational and individual group functions by training its newly hired AmericanN employees in Japan. N Formal-Informal Boundaries Have E Go to www.mcgrawhillconnect.com for an interactive exercise to test your knowledge of the functions of formal groups. Blurred in the Age of Social Media 1 They have Social relationships are complex, alive, and dynamic. little regard for arbitrary boundaries, especially with today’s real9 time social media. The desirability of overlapping formal and informal groups is problematic. Some managers0firmly believe personal friendship fosters productive teamwork on 2 the job while others view workplace “bull sessions” as a serious damper on productivity. In fact, a recent survey of workers 18 andTolder surfaced the major positives and negatives of workplace friendships. The S positives were a more supportive workplace (selected by 70% of the employees) and increased teamwork (69%). The negatives were gossip (44%) and favoritism (37%).13 Managers are responsible for Some lively sports competition among co-workers can break down job boundaries, open lines of communication, build teamwork, and generate healthy group dynamics. formal group Formed by the organization. informal group Formed by friends or those with common interests. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 271 12/6/11 5:09 PM 272 Part Three Group and Social Processes real WORLD // real PEOPLE Russian Culture Embraces Social Media Facebook officially launched its [Russian] site in April [2010] and only ranks No. 5 so far, according to Internet tracker comScore, but its growth has been impressive. From January until August of 2010, its Russian operation has racked up a 376 percent increase in users, to 4.5 million. . . . [T]here is a long tradition in Russia of relying on informal networks for simple day-to-day survival. “In Russia, there is no sense that you can rely on the public or the system, so you’ve traditionally had to rely on a network of friends,” says Esther Dyson, a venture capitalist who has been investing in Russia’s tech sector for over a decade. In a country with weak institutions, “it’s very natural for people to network for what they want.” Even in these less oppressive, post-Soviet times, relationships are critical to everything from landing a job to wriggling out of a problem with authorities. How are social media such as Facebook and Twitter empowering oppressed people around the world today? R SOURCE: Excerpted from J Ioffe, “In Russia, Facebook Is More I Than a Social Network,” Bloomberg Businessweek, January 3–9, 2011, C pp 32–33. A R D on the maturity and goals of the people instriking a workable balance, based volved. Additionally, there is the , ethics-laden issue of managers being friends with the people they oversee. The Social Media Revolution For many years, the term networking simply A meant building a modest list of personal and professional contacts and attempting D to keep in touch on a regular basis. But thanks to Internet tools such as e-mail, blogs, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube,R and Twitter, networking has gone hyper and global— 14 with Facebook and Twitter even I playing key roles in the Egyptian revolution. (See Real World/Real People.) Why settle for a static list of contacts when you can have E instant, comprehensive, and impactful interaction with countless thousands? PC magazine offers this working defi nition of a social networking site (SNS): N N Example. A Web site that provides E a virtual community for people interested in a particular subject or just to “hang out” together. Members create their own online “profile” with biographical data, pictures, likes, dislikes and any other information they choose to post. They communicate with each other by voice, chat, instant 1 message, videoconference and blogs, and the service typically provides a way for members to contact friends of 9other members.15 0 2 may not know each other on a face-to-face basis Members of an SNS may or and SNS use is dominated by, T but not restricted to, young people. According to a Pew Research Center survey, 75% of online users ages 18–24 and 30% of online S users ages 35–44 have at least one profile on an SNS.16 As SNSs continue to mushroom and new applications emerge, organizational leaders generally have been left scratching their heads. Their unanswered questions abound: How can we profit from this? How can we embrace and/or control it? Is it a good or bad thing? What are the implications of this massive connectivity for productivity, privacy, harassment, confidentiality, protection of intellectual property, and information systems security? Networking via social media truly is the Wild West of organizational life, with mostly unanswered questions and unknown consequences.17 (Corporate social media policies are discussed in Chapter 14.) Although the lines between formal and informal groups in the workplace have been blurred almost beyond recognition, managers still need to establish some boundaries. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 272 12/6/11 5:10 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics 273 Should Managers Be Friends with Those Who Report to Them? A long-standing group dynamics dilemma magnified by social media involves manager–employee friendships (see the Legal/Ethical Challenge at the end of this chapter). In their business advice column, Jack and Suzy Welch offered this sound advice: Example. [Y]ou don’t need to be friends with your subordinates, as long as you share the same values for the business. But if you are friends with them, lucky you. Working with people you really like for 8 or 10 hours a day adds fun to everything. That said, remember that boss-subordinate friendships live or die because of one thing: complete, unrelenting candor. Candor is imperative in any working relationship, but it’s especially necessary when there’s a social aspect involved. You don’t want your liking someone’s personality to automatically communicate that R you like his or her performance. You may, but performance evaluations have to I at work—as often as four come in a distinct and separate set of conversations times a year—in which you sit down with your subordinate, put the shared laughs C from last weekend’s barbecue in the corner, and talk about what’s expected and A what has been delivered.18 R D This requires a good deal of emotional and social intelligence. , LO.2 The Group Development Process A Groups and teams in the workplace go through a maturation process, such as D organizations, products). one would find in any life-cycle situation (e.g., humans, While there is general agreement among theorists that R the group development process occurs in identifiable stages, they disagree about the exact number, sequence, length, and nature of those stages.19 One oft-cited Imodel is the one proposed in 1965 by educational psychologist Bruce W Tuckman. E His original model involved only four stages (forming, storming, norming, and performing). N The five-stage model in Figure 10–2 evolved when Tuckman and a doctoral N is in order. Somewhat student added “adjourning” in 1977.20 A word of caution akin to Maslow’s need hierarchy theory, Tuckman’sE theory has been repeated and taught so often and for so long that many have come to view it as documented fact, not merely a theory. Even today, it is good to remember Tuckman’s own caution that his group development model was derived 1 more from group therapy sessions than from natural-life groups. Still, many in the organizational behavior 9 development because of its (OB) field like Tuckman’s five-stage model of group easy-to-remember labels and commonsense appeal.0 TO THE POINT Why is it important to know the stages of group development when creating effective work groups and teams? Go to www.mcgrawhillconnect.com for an interactive exercise to test your knowledge of the group development process. 2 T Let us walk through the five stages in Tuckman’s model. Notice in Figure 10–2 S when they join and parhow individuals give up a measure of their independence Five Stages ticipate in a group. Also, the various stages are not necessarily of the same duration or intensity. For instance, the storming stage may be practically nonexistent or painfully long, depending on the goal clarity and the commitment and maturity of the members. You can make this process come to life by relating the various stages social networking site (SNS) A Web-enabled community of people who share all types of information. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 273 12/6/11 5:10 PM 274 Part Three Group and Social Processes figure 10–2 Tuckman’s Five-Stage Theory of Group Development Performing Adjourning Return to independence Norming Storming Dependence/ interdependence Forming Independence Individual issues Group issues "How do I fit in?" R I C A R "What's my roleD here?" , "Why are we "Why are we here?" fighting over whoAis in charge and D who does what?" R "What do the others expect me to do?" "How can I "What's best perform next?" my role?" "Can we agree "Can we do on roles and the job work as a properly?" team?" "Can we help members transition out?" I to your own experiences with work groups, committees, athletic teams, social or E religious groups, or class project teams. Some group happenings that surprised N make sense or strike you as inevitable when seen you when they occurred may now as part of a natural development N process. Ethis ice-breaking stage, group members tend to be During uncertain and anxious about such things as their roles, who is in charge, and the group’s goals. Also, prior experience between members of the group can create 1 21 Mutual trust is low, and there is a good deal of friction, according to a new study. holding back to see who takes charge and how. If the formal leader (e.g., a supervi9 sor) does not assert his or her authority, an emergent leader will eventually step in 0 to fulfill the group’s need for leadership and direction. Leaders typically mistake 2 this honeymoon period as a mandate for permanent control. But later problems may force a leadership change.T Recent research found improved communication among members of new S of specialists possessing unique knowledge22 (a problem-solving teams comprised common situation today). So teambuilding, discussed in the next chapter, can give new groups a helpful running start. Stage 1: Forming Stage 2: Storming This is a time of testing. Individuals test the leader’s policies and assumptions as they try to determine how they fit into the power structure. Subgroups take shape, and subtle forms of rebellion, such as procrastination, occur. Many groups stall in stage 2 because power politics erupts into open rebellion.23 Stage 3: Norming Groups that make it through stage 2 generally do so because a respected member, other than the leader, challenges the group to resolve kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 274 12/6/11 5:10 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics 275 its power struggles so something can be accomplished. Questions about authority and power are resolved through unemotional, matter-of-fact group discussion. A feeling of team spirit is experienced because members believe they have found their proper roles. Group cohesiveness, defined as the “we feeling” that binds members of a group together, is the principal by-product of stage 3.24 (For a good laugh, see the golfing explanation below the photo.) Stage 4: Performing Activity during this vital stage is focused on solving task problems. As members of a mature group, contributors get their work done without hampering others. There is a climate of open communication, strong cooperation, and lots of helping behavior. Conflicts and job boundary disputes are handled constructively and efficiently. Cohesiveness andR personal commitment to group goals help the group achieve more than any one I group develindividual could acting alone. According to a pair of opment experts, C A Example. the group structure can become flexible and R adjust to fit the requirements of the situation without causing problems for the members. Influence can shift depending on who hasDthe particular expertise or skills required for the group task or activity. , Subgroups can work on special problems or subproblems without posing threats to the authority or cohesiveness of the rest of the group.25 A D Stage 5: Adjourning The work is done; it is time to move on to other things. Having worked so hard to get alongRand get something done, many members feel a compelling sense Iof loss. The return to independence can be eased by rituals celebrating “the end” E and “new beginnings.” Parties, award ceremonies, graduations, or mock funerals can provide the needed punctuationNat the end of a significant group project. Leaders need to emphasize valuable N for future lessons learned in group dynamics to prepare everyone group and team efforts. E A Fortune article examined the question, Why do people love to mix golf and business? (Hint: It’s all about group dynamics.): Ask people why they golf with business associates, and the answer is always the same: It’s a great way to build relationships. They say this far more about golf than about going to dinner or attending a baseball game, and for good reason. Indeed, this may be the central fact about corporate golf, though it’s rarely said: When people golf together, they see one another humiliated. At least 95% of all golfers are terrible, which means that in 18 holes everyone in the foursome will hit a tree, take three strokes in one bunker, or fourputt, with everyone else watching. Bonding is simply a matter of people jointly going through adversity, and a round of golf will furnish plenty of it. Of course it’s only a game, but of course it isn’t, so the bonds can be surprisingly strong. And what’s that worth? SOURCE: G Colvin, “Why Execs Love Golf,” Fortune, April 30, 2001, p 46. 1 Back to the Chapter-Opening Case 9 What evidence of stage 5 in Tuckman’s group development 0 model can you find in Pat McDonald’s handling of the plant closing? 2 T Group Development: Research S and Practical Implications A growing body of group development research provides managers with some practical insights. group cohesiveness A “we feeling” binding group members together. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 275 12/6/11 5:10 PM 276 Part Three Group and Social Processes Extending the Tuckman Model: Group Decay An interesting study of 10 software development teams, ranging in size from 5 to 16 members, enhanced the practical significance of Tuckman’s model.26 Unlike Tuckman’s laboratory groups who worked together only briefly, the teams of software engineers worked on projects lasting years. Consequently, the researchers discovered more than simply a five-stage group development process. Groups were observed actually shifting into reverse once Tuckman’s “performing” stage was reached, in what the researchers called group decay. In keeping with Tuckman’s terminology, the three observed stages of group decay were labeled “de-norming,” “de-storming,” and “de-forming.” These additional stages take shape as follows: • De-norming. As the project evolves, there is a natural erosion of standards of conduct. Group members drift in different directions as their interests and expectations change. R group decay is a mirror opposite of the storming • De-storming. This stage of stage. Whereas disagreements I and conflicts arise rather suddenly during the storming stage, an undercurrent of discontent slowly comes to the surface C during the de-storming stage. Individual resistance increases and cohesiveA ness declines. • De-forming. The work group R literally falls apart as subgroups battle for control. Those pieces of the project that are not claimed by individuals or D“Group members begin isolating themselves subgroups are abandoned. from each other and from, their leaders. Performance declines rapidly because the whole job is no longer being done and group members little care what happens beyond their self-imposed borders.”27 A The primary management lesson from this study is that group leaders should not become complacent uponDreaching the performing stage. According to the researchers, “The performing stage is a knife edge or saddle point, not a point of R static equilibrium.”28 Awareness is the first line of defense. Beyond that, constructive steps need to be taken to Ireinforce norms, bolster cohesiveness, and reaffirm the common goal—even when E work groups seem to be doing their best. Feedback Another fruitfulNstudy was carried out by a pair of Dutch social psy- chologists. They hypothesized N that interpersonal feedback would vary systematically during the group development E process. “The unit of feedback measured was a verbal message directed from one participant to another in which some aspect of behavior was addressed.”29 After collecting and categorizing 1,600 instances of feedback from four different eight-person groups, they concluded the following: 1 • Interpersonal feedback increases as the group develops through successive 9 stages. 0 • Interpersonal feedback becomes more specific as the group develops. 2 • As the group develops, positive feedback increases and negative feedback decreases. T • The credibility of peer feedback increases as the group develops.30 S These findings hold important lessons for managers. The content and delivery of interpersonal feedback among work group or committee members can be used as a gauge of whether the group is developing properly. For example, the onset of stage 2 (storming) will be signaled by a noticeable increase in negative feedback. Effort can then be directed at generating specific, positive feedback among the members so the group’s development will not stall. Our discussion of feedback in Chapter 9 is helpful in this regard. Deadlines Field and laboratory studies found uncertainty about deadlines to be a major disruptive force in both group development and intergroup kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 276 12/6/11 5:10 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics 277 relations. The practical implications of this finding were summed up by the researcher as follows: Example. Uncertain or shifting deadlines are a fact of life in many organizations. Interdependent organizational units and groups may keep each other waiting, may suddenly move deadlines forward or back, or may create deadlines that are known to be earlier than is necessary in efforts to control erratic workflows. The current research suggests that the consequences of such uncertainty may involve more than stress, wasted time, overtime work, and intergroup conflicts. Synchrony in group members’ expectations about deadlines may be critical to groups’ abilities to accomplish successful transitions in their work.31 R Thus, effective group management involves clarifying not only tasks and goals, but schedules and deadlines as well. When groupImembers accurately perceive important deadlines, the pacing of work and timing of interdependent tasks tend C to be more efficient. A Leadership Styles Along a somewhat differentR line, experts in the area of leadership contend that different leadership styles are needed as work groups develop. D , Example. In general, it has been documented that leadership behavior that is active, aggressive, directive, structured, and task-oriented seems to have favorable results early in the group’s history. However, when those behaviors A are maintained throughout the life of the group, they seem to have a negative impact on cohesiveness and quality of work. Conversely, leadership behavior thatDis supportive, democratic, decentralized, and participative seems to be related to poorer functioning in the early R group development stages. However, when these behaviors are maintained throughI out the life of the group, more productivity, satisfaction, and creativity result.32 E N The practical punch line here is that managers are advised to shift from a direcN and supportive style as the tive and structured leadership style to a participative group develops.33 E Roles and Norms: Social1 9 Building Blocks for Group 0 and Organizational Behavior 2 TO THE POINT What are roles and norms and how do they affect workplace behavior? Work groups transform individuals into functioning T organizational members through subtle yet powerful social forces.34 These social forces, in effect, turn “I” S into “we” and “me” into “us.” Group influence weaves individuals into the organization’s social fabric by communicating and enforcing both role expectations and norms. We need to understand roles and norms if we are to effectively manage group and organizational behavior. Roles Four centuries have passed since William Shakespeare had his character Jaques speak the following memorable lines in Act II of As You Like It: “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts.” This intriguing notion of kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 277 12/6/11 5:10 PM 278 Part Three Group and Social Processes figure 10–3 A Role Episode Role Sender • Perceived organizational/ group requirements • Comparative evaluation of – Role expectations for focal person – Focal person's behavior Focal Person • Perceived role expectations Role modeling • Experienced role overload, role conflict, role ambiguity Communication of • Constructive/destructive approval or need for responses change Feedback SOURCE: Adapted in part from R L Kohn, D M Wolfe, R P Quinn, and J D Snoek, Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, 1981 ed. (Malabar, FL: Robert E Krieger Publishing, 1964), p 26. R I C all people as actors in a universal play was not lost on 20th-century sociologists A of human interaction based on roles. According who developed a complex theory to an OB scholar, “roles are sets R of behaviors that persons expect of occupants of a position.”35 Role theory attempts to explain how these social expectations D section explores role theory by analyzing a role influence employee behavior. This episode and defining the terms, role overload, role conflict, and role ambiguity. Role Episodes A role episode, as illustrated in Figure 10–3, consists of a snapshot of the ongoing interaction between two people. In any given role epiA sode, there is a role sender and a focal person who is expected to act out the role. D Within a broader social context, one may be simultaneously a role sender and a R analysis, however, it is instructive to deal with focal person. For the sake of social separate role episodes. I Role episodes begin with the role sender’s perception of the relevant organizaE tion’s or group’s behavioral requirements. Those requirements serve as a standard for formulating expectations for the focal person’s behavior. The role sender then N cognitively evaluates the focal person’s actual behavior against those expectations. N messages are then sent to the focal person to Appropriate verbal and behavioral pressure him or her into behaving E as expected. A meta-analysis of the results from 160 different studies involving 77,954 employees confirmed that positive and negative peer pressure powerfully influence role performance.36 This is how Westinghouse used a carrot-and-stick approach to communicate role expectations: 1 9 Example. The carrot is a plan, 0 that . . . rewarded 134 managers with options to buy 764,000 shares of stock for boosting the company’s financial performance. 2 that are used to rank managers by how much The stick is quarterly meetings their operations contribute to T earnings per share. The soft-spoken . . . [chairman of the board] doesn’t scold. He just charts in green the results of the sectors that S have met their goals and charts the laggards in red. Peer pressure does the rest. Shame “is a powerful tool,” says one executive.37 Interestingly, only 10 percent strongly agreed and 31 percent agreed with the following statement in a new workplace survey: “Do you believe that individuals in your organization are held accountable for meeting performance expectations?”38 Significant productivity improvement could be achieved if organizations did a better job of communicating and enforcing role expectations. On the receiving end of the role episode, the focal person accurately or inaccurately perceives the communicated role expectations and modeled behavior. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 278 12/6/11 5:10 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics 279 Various combinations of role overload, role conflict, and role ambiguity are then experienced. (These three outcomes are defined and discussed in the following sections.) The focal person then responds constructively by engaging in problem solving, for example, or destructively because of undue tension, stress, and strain. Role Overload According to organizational psychologist Edgar Schein, role overload occurs when “the sum total of what role senders expect of the focal person far exceeds what he or she is able to do.”39 Students who attempt to handle a full course load and maintain a decent social life while working R 30 or more hours a week know full well the physical I and emotional consequences of role overload. As the individual tries to do more and more in less and less C time, stress mounts, personal effectiveness slips, and A health may deteriorate. R LO.3 Role Conflict Have you ever felt D “How did life suddenly get so complicated?” When tackling like you were being torn apart by the con- adulthood, with all its competing role expectations and , pressures, it is good to have these three anchors: (1) I know flicting demands of those around you? If so, you were a victim of role conflict. Role conflict is experienced who I am and what I can do, (2) I know what I want, and when “different members of the role set expect differ- (3) I have sound goals and plans for getting there. A ent things of the focal person.” Job holders often face conflicting demands between work and family, as discussed in Chapter 6. Women D tend to experience greater work-versus-family role conflict than men because they Rand elder care duties. typically shoulder more of the household, child care, I E the housework of the averExample. The average wife still does roughly double age husband: the equivalent of two full workdays ofNadditional chores each week. Even when the man is unemployed, the woman handles a majority of the domestic workload, and it’s the same story with child care. N If both parents are working, women spend 400 percent more time with the kids. E Meanwhile, the number of fatherless kids in America has nearly tripled since 1960, and the percentage of men who call themselves stay-at-home dads has stalled below 3 percent. The old roles, 1 say sociologists, are hard to shake.40 Go to www.mcgrawhillconnect.com for a self-assessment to help determine your team role preference. 9 0 Employees in single-person and nontraditional households have their own versions of role conflict between work and outside interests. 2 Role conflict also may be experienced when internalized values, ethics, or personal standards collide with others’ expectations. ForTinstance, an otherwise ethical production supervisor may be told by a superior toS “fudge a little” on the quality control reports so an important deadline will be met. The resulting role conflict forces the supervisor to choose between being loyal but unethical or ethical but disloyal. Tough ethical choices such as this mean personal turmoil, interpersonal conflict, and even resignation. Consequently, experts say business schools should do a better job of weaving ethics education into their course requirements. roles Expected behaviors for a given position. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 279 role overload Others’ expectations exceed one’s ability. role conflict Others have conflicting or inconsistent expectations. 12/6/11 5:10 PM 280 Part Three Group and Social Processes Role Ambiguity Those who experience role conflict may have trouble complying with role demands, but they at least know what is expected of them. Such is not the case with role ambiguity, which occurs when “members of the role set fail to communicate to the focal person expectations they have or information needed to perform the role, either because they do not have the information or because they deliberately withhold it.”41 In short, people experience role ambiguity when they do not know what is expected of them. Organizational newcomers often complain about unclear job descriptions and vague promotion criteria. According to role theory, prolonged role ambiguity can foster job dissatisfaction, erode self-confidence, and hamper job performance. As the following situation illustrates, management can reduce workplace role ambiguity: Example. Good leaders excel at converting something ambiguous into something R behavioral. Take Terry Leahy, one of the leaders responsible for reversing the fortunes of Tesco, now the UK’sINo 1 grocer. One of Tesco’s ambiguous goals was to do a better job “listening to C customers.” Leahy broke down that goal into a set of specific actions. For instance, cashiers were trained to call for help anytime A in the checkout line. In addition, Tesco received more than one person was waiting 100,000 queries per week fromRcustomers. Leahy’s team made sure that all Tesco managers had access to customer concerns. . . . As a result, they learned counterD intuitive lessons, such as that customers dislike stainless-steel refrigerators, which remind people of a hospital—not an ideal association for a grocer.42 , As might be expected, roleAambiguity varies across cultures. In a 21-nation study, people in individualistic cultures were found to have higher role ambiguity D 43 In other words, people in collectivist or “we” than people in collectivist cultures. cultures had a clearer idea of others’ R expectations. Collectivist cultures make sure everyone knows their proper place in society. People in individualistic “me” culI tures, such as the United States, may enjoy more individual discretion, but comE has its price—namely, greater role ambiguity. paratively less input from others As mentioned earlier, theseNrole outcomes typically are experienced in some combination, usually to the detriment of the individual and the organization. In N lower job performance when employees experifact, a study in Israel documented 44 enced a combination of role confl E ict and role ambiguity. LO.4 Norms 1 Norms are more encompassing than roles. While roles involve behavioral expecta9 help organizational members determine right tions for specific positions, norms from wrong and good from bad. 0 According to one respected team of management consultants: “A norm is an attitude, opinion, feeling, or action—shared by two or 2 more people—that guides their behavior.”45 Although norms are typically unwritten and seldom discussed openly, T they have a powerful influence on group and organizational behavior. PepsiCo, for instance, has evolved a norm that equates S corporate competitiveness with physical fitness. According to observers, Example. Leanness and nimbleness are qualities that pervade the company. When Pepsi’s brash young managers take a few minutes away from the office, they often head straight for the company’s physical fitness center or for a jog around the museum-quality sculptures outside of PepsiCo’s Purchase, New York, headquarters.46 At PepsiCo and elsewhere, group members positively reinforce those who adhere to current norms with friendship and acceptance. On the other hand, kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 280 12/6/11 5:10 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics 281 real WORLD // real PEOPLE: ethics How Founder Bill Witherspoon Made Helping Others the Norm at Sky Factory I think of our factory as a community, and service is the core of the community. There are two kinds of service. One is: I do this for you, and I expect a return. For example, I provide good customer service, and I expect loyalty. The other kind of service is selfless. I do something for you without thought of a return. I help you spontaneously and without thinking about it. That second kind R of service is powerful. When someone has a moment of free time, how wonderful if she automatically thinks, I Now, what can I do to help someone else? At the start of our Friday meetings, the leader for that week tells an appreciative story about someone at the company and presents the person with $25. Often, the story involves an unselfish, unsolicited offer of help. Why is the concept of “community” a powerful group dynamics tool in today’s workplaces? SOURCE: L Buchanan, “The Art of Work,” Inc, June 2010, p 80. C A nonconformists experience criticism and even ostracism, or rejection by group memR bers. Anyone who has experienced the “silent treatment” from a group of friends knows what a potent social weapon ostracism canDbe.47 Norms can be put into proper perspective by understanding how they develop , and why they are enforced. How Norms Are Developed Experts say norms evolve in an informal manner as the group or organization determines A what it takes to be effective. Generally speaking, norms develop in various combinations of the following four D ways: RFor instance, a group leader 1. Explicit statements by supervisors or co-workers. might explicitly set norms about not drinkingI (alcohol) at lunch. (See Real World/Real People.) E 2. Critical events in the group’s history. At times there is a critical event in the N group’s history that establishes an important precedent. (For example, a key recruit may have decided to work elsewhere because a group member said N too many negative things about the organization. Hence, a norm against such “sour grapes” behavior might evolve.) E 3. Primacy. The first behavior pattern that emerges in a group often sets group expectations. If the first group meeting is marked 1 by very formal interaction between supervisors and employees, then the group often expects future meetings to be conducted in the same way. 9 4. Carryover behaviors from past situations. Such 0 carryover of individual behaviors from past situations can increase the predictability of group members’ 2 behaviors in new settings and facilitate task accomplishment. For instance, T of expectations from class students and professors carry fairly constant sets 48 to class. S We would like you to take a few moments and think about the norms that are currently in effect in your classroom. List the norms on a sheet of paper. Do these norms help or hinder your ability to learn? Norms can affect performance either positively or negatively. role ambiguity Others’ expectations are unknown. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 281 norm Shared attitudes, opinions, feelings, or actions that guide social behavior. ostracism Rejection by other group members. 12/6/11 5:10 PM 282 table 10–3 Part Three Group and Social Processes Four Reasons Norms Are Enforced NORM REASON FOR ENFORCEMENT EXAMPLE “Make our department look good in top management’s eyes.” Group/organization survival After vigorously defending the vital role played by the Human Resources Management Department at a divisional meeting, a staff specialist is complimented by her boss. “Success comes to those who work hard and don’t make waves.” Clarification of behavioral expectations A senior manager takes a young associate aside and cautions him to be a bit more patient with co-workers who see things differently. “Be a team player, not a star.” Avoidance of embarrassmentR A project team member is ridiculed by her peers for dominating the discussion during a progress report to top management. “Customer service is our top priority.” I C Clarification of central values/ unique identity A R D , Two sales representatives are given a surprise Friday afternoon party for having received prestigious best-in-the-industry customer service awards from an industry association. Why Norms Are Enforced Norms tend to be enforced by group members when they: Go to www.mcgrawhillconnect.com for an interactive video case on group dynamics at Pike Place Fish Market. • • • • A Help the group or organization survive. D Clarify or simplify behavioral expectations. R Help individuals avoid embarrassing situations. I Clarify the group’s or organization’s central values and/or unique identity.49 E N N E Back to the Chapter-Opening Case Working examples of each of these four situations are presented in Table 10–3. What corporate norms are evident in the Intel case? 1 9 0 Relevant Research2Insights and Managerial Implications T Although instruments used to measure role conflict and role ambiguity have quesS tionable validity,50 two separate meta-analyses indicated that role conflict and role ambiguity negatively affected employees. Specifically, role conflict and role ambiguity were associated with job dissatisfaction, tension and anxiety, lack of organizational commitment, intentions to quit, and, to a lesser extent, poor job performance.51 The meta-analyses’ results hold few surprises for managers. Generally, because of the negative association reported, it makes sense for management to reduce both role conflict and role ambiguity. In this endeavor, managers can use feedback, formal rules and procedures, directive leadership, challenging behaviorally specific goals, and participation. Managers also can use the mentoring process discussed in Chapter 3 to reduce role conflict and ambiguity. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 282 12/6/11 5:10 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics 283 Regarding norms, a set of laboratory studies involving a total of 1,504 college students as subjects has important implications for workplace diversity programs. Subjects in groups where the norm was to express prejudices, condone discrimination, and laugh at hostile jokes tended to engage in these undesirable behaviors. Conversely, subjects tended to disapprove of prejudicial and discriminatory conduct when exposed to groups with more socially acceptable norms.52 So, once again, our parents and teachers were right when they warned us about the dangers of hanging out with the “wrong crowd.” Managers who want to build strong diversity programs need to cultivate favorable role models and positive group norms. Poor role models and antisocial norms need to be identified and weeded out. Group Structure and Composition R with varying personalities, Work groups of various size are made up of individuals 53 abilities, and motivation. Moreover, those individuals I perform different roles, on either an assigned or voluntary basis. No wonder some work groups are more proCtightly knit while others walductive than others. No wonder some committees are low in conflict. In this section, we examine three important dimensions of group A structure and composition: (1) functional roles of group members, (2) group size, R and (3) gender composition. Each of these dimensions alternatively can enhance Dmanaged. or hinder group effectiveness, depending on how it is TO THE POINT How do task and maintenance roles vary and what does research tell us about group size and mixed-gender groups? , Functional Roles Performed by Group Members As described in Table 10–4, both task and maintenance A roles need to be performed if a work group is to accomplish anything.54 D LO.5 Task versus Maintenance RolesR Task roles enable the work group to define, clarify, and pursue a common purpose. Meanwhile, maintenance roles foster supportive and constructiveIinterpersonal relationships. In short, task roles keep the group on track while maintenance roles keep the group toE gether. A project team member is performing a task function at an update meeting N when he or she says, “What is the real issue here? We N don’t seem to be getting anywhere.” Another individual who says, “Let’s hear from those who oppose this E plan,” is performing a maintenance function. Importantly, each of the various task and maintenance roles may be played in varying combinations and sequences 1 by either the group’s leader or any of its members. 9 Checklist for Managers The task and mainte0 nance roles listed in Table 10–4 can serve as a handy 2 checklist for managers and group leaders who wish to T ensure proper group development. Roles that are not always performed when needed, such as those of coorS dinator, evaluator, and gatekeeper, can be performed in a timely manner by the formal leader or assigned to other members. The task roles of initiator, orienter, and energizer are especially important because they are goal-directed roles. Research studies on group goal setting confirm the motivational power of challenging task roles Task-oriented group behavior. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 283 In today’s fast-paced, project-oriented workplaces, everyone needs to be adept at playing different roles and clarifying relevant norms. How are your skills in this area of group dynamics? maintenance roles Relationshipbuilding group behavior. 12/6/11 5:10 PM 284 table 10–4 Part Three Group and Social Processes Functional Roles Performed by Group Members TASK ROLES DESCRIPTION Initiator Suggests new goals or ideas. Information seeker/giver Clarifies key issues. Opinion seeker/giver Clarifies pertinent values. Elaborator Promotes greater understanding through examples or exploration of implications. Coordinator Pulls together ideas and suggestions. Orienter Keeps group headed toward Rits stated goal(s). Evaluator I with various criteria such as logic and practicality. Tests group’s accomplishments Energizer Prods group to move alongC or to accomplish more. Procedural technician Ahanding out materials or rearranging seats). Performs routine duties (e.g., Encourager R D DESCRIPTION , Fosters group solidarity by accepting and praising various points of view. Harmonizer Mediates conflict through reconciliation or humor. Compromiser Helps resolve conflict by meeting others half way. Recorder MAINTENANCE ROLES Performs a “group memory” function by documenting discussion and outcomes. A D Gatekeeper Encourages all group members to participate. R Standard setter Evaluates the quality of group processes. I Commentator Records and comments onE group processes/dynamics. Follower Serves as a passive audience. N SOURCE: Adapted from discussion in K D Benne and P Sheats, “FunctionalN Roles of Group Members,” Journal of Social Issues, Spring 1948, pp 41– 49. E Go to www.mcgrawhillconnect.com for a comprehension case to test your knowledge of masculine behavior and group dynamics. goals. As with individual goal 1 setting (in Chapter 9), difficult but achievable goals are associated with better group results.55 Also in line with individual goal-setting 9 are more effective if group members clearly untheory and research, group goals derstand them and are both individually and collectively committed to achieving 0 them. Initiators, orienters, and energizers can be very helpful in this regard. 2 to be sensitive to cultural differences regarding International managers need the relative importance of taskTand maintenance roles. In Japan, for example, cultural tradition calls for more emphasis on maintenance roles, especially the roles S of harmonizer and compromiser: Example. Courtesy requires that members not be conspicuous or disputatious in a meeting or classroom. If two or more members discover that their views differ—a fact that is tactfully taken to be unfortunate—they adjourn to find more information and to work toward a stance that all can accept. They do not press their personal opinions through strong arguments, neat logic, or rewards and threats. And they do not hesitate to shift their beliefs if doing so will preserve smooth interpersonal relations. (To lose is to win.)56 kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 284 12/6/11 5:10 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics 285 Group Size How many group members is too many? The answer to this deceptively simple question has intrigued managers and academics for years. Folk wisdom says “two heads are better than one” but warns that “too many cooks spoil the broth.” Recent employee survey evidence shows three-person work groups to be the most popular (54%), followed by groups of four or more (27%) and then by two-person groups (9%).57 So where should a manager draw the line when staffing a committee? At three? At five or six? At ten or more? Researchers have taken two different approaches to pinpointing optimum group size: mathematical modeling and laboratory simulations. Let us briefly review research evidence from these two approaches. The Mathematical Modeling Approach RThis approach involves building a mathematical model around certain desired outcomes of group action such as decision quality. Due to differing assumptions and I statistical techniques, the results of this research are inconclusive. Statistical estimates of optimum group C size have ranged from 3 to 13.58 A The Laboratory Simulation Approach RThis stream of research is based on the assumption that group behavior needs to be observed firsthand in controlled laboratory settings. A laboratory studyDby respected Australian researcher Philip Yetton and his colleague, Preston Bottger, provides useful insights , 59 about group size and performance. A total of 555 subjects (330 managers and 225 graduate management students, of whom 20% were female) were assigned to task teams ranging in size from two to six. The teams A worked on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration moon survival exercise. (This exercise involves the rank ordering of 15 pieces of equipment D that would enable a spaceship crew on the moon to survive a 200-mile trip between R a crash-landing site and home base.)60 After analyzing the relationships between group size and group perI formance, Yetton and Bottger concluded the following: E N Example. It would be difficult, at least with respect to decision quality, to justify Nmeet needs other than high groups larger than five members. . . . Of course, to decision quality, organizations may employ groupsEsignificantly larger than four or five.61 1 More recent laboratory studies exploring the brainstorming productivity of 9 versus computer-mediated various size groups (2 to 12 people), in face-to-face situations, proved fruitful. In the usual face-to-face0brainstorming sessions, productivity of ideas did not increase as the size of the group increased. But brain2 increased when ideas were storming productivity increased as the size of the group typed into networked computers.62 These results suggest T that computer networks are helping to deliver on the promise of productivity improvement through modS ern information technology. LO.6 Managerial Implications Within a contingency management framework, there is no hard-and-fast rule about group size. It depends on the manager’s objective for the group. If a high-quality decision is the main objective, then a three- to five-member group would be appropriate. However, if the objective is to generate creative ideas, encourage participation, socialize new members, engage in training, or communicate policies, then groups much larger than five could be justified. But even in this developmental domain, researchers have found upward limits on group size. According to a meta-analysis, the positive effects of team-building activities diminished as group size increased.63 Managers kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 285 12/6/11 5:10 PM 286 Part Three Group and Social Processes also need to be aware of qualitative changes that occur when group size increases. A meta-analysis of eight studies found the following relationships: As group size increased, group leaders tended to become more directive, and group member satisfaction tended to decline slightly.64 Odd-numbered groups (e.g., three, five, seven members) are recommended if the issue is to be settled by a majority vote. Voting deadlocks (e.g., 2–2, 3–3) can stall even-numbered groups. LO.7 Effects of Men and Women Working Together in Groups As pointed out in Chapter 2, the female portion of the US labor force has grown significantly in recent decades. This demographic shift has impacted attitudes. For R example, in a report about a longitudinal study of US executives, the researchers I observed: C Example. Men and women areA. . . responding similarly to the statement “I would feel comfortable working for aR woman.” Most female respondents continue to say they would, though there’s been a slight drop since 1985. Of the men, 71% say they would. That figure is up signifiD cantly from 1965 (27%) and 1985 (47%).65 , With more committees and teams requiring collaboration between women and men, some profound effects onA group dynamics might be expected. Let us see what researchers have found in the way of group gender composition effects and what managers can do about them. D R Women Face an UphillI Battle in Mixed-Gender Task Groups Laboratory and field studies paint a picture of inequality for women working in E and men need to be aware of these often subtle mixed-gender groups. Both women but powerful group dynamicsN so corrective steps can be taken. Here is a prime example from a recent study of the link between handshake strength and job inNconcluded: terview ratings. The researchers E [W]e demonstrate that women overcome the effects of weaker handshakes, such that on average they do not receive lower interview performance ratings from interviewers, and that women may actually benefit more than do men if they present a strong and complete grip when they shake hands.66 Example. 1 9 0 2 T S One study suggests that females entering male-dominated fields, such as law enforcement, face greater challenges than do males entering female-dominated fields, such as nursing. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 286 Of course, the cultural context of this study (US university students as subjects) needs to be taken into consideration. Handshake etiquette varies across cultures. In a laboratory study of six-person task groups, a clear pattern of gender inequality was found in the way group members interrupted each other. Men 12/6/11 5:10 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics 287 interrupted women significantly more often than they did other men. Women, who tended to interrupt less frequently and less successfully than men, interrupted men and women equally.67 Another laboratory study involving Canadian college students found “both men and women exhibiting higher levels of interruption behavior in male-dominated groups.”68 A field study of mixed-gender police and nursing teams in the Netherlands found another group dynamics disadvantage for women. These two particular professions—police work and nursing—were fruitful research areas because men dominate the former while women dominate the latter. As women move into maledominated police forces and men gain employment opportunities in the femaledominated world of nursing, who faces the greatest resistance? The answer from this study was the women police officers. As the representation of the minority gender (either female police officers or male nurses) increased in the work groups, the following changes in attitude were observed: R I Example. The attitude of the male majority changes from neutral to resistant, C whereas the attitude of the female majority changes from favorable to neutral. In other words, men increasingly want to keep theirA domain for themselves, while 69 women remain willing to share their domain with men. R D Again, managers are faced with the challenge of countering discriminatory ten, dencies in group dynamics. The Issue of Sexual Harassment According A to an industry survey by a New York law firm specializing in workplace issues, the problem of sexual harassD ment refuses to go away: R I Example. 63% of [234] respondents noted that they had handled a sexual harassE when 57% said they had ment complaint at their company. That’s up from 2003, handled one. At least there was some good news here; N that’s way down from 1995, when 95% of respondents said that they’d handled one.70 N E The problem persists outside the business sector as well: 1 9 being a victim of sexual visit a Veterans Affairs center for medical care report 71 assault or harassment during military duty. 0 2 Making matters worse, a field study of five organizations T found sexual harassment compounded by ethnic discrimination. According to the researchers, “Women experiS enced more sexual harassment than men, minorities experienced more ethnic harassExample. About one out of seven female veterans of Afghanistan or Iraq who ment than whites, and minority women experienced more harassment overall than majority men, minority men, and majority women.”72 Thus, it was double jeopardy for the minority women. On-the-job harassment is persistent because it is rooted in widespread abusive behavior among teenagers (both face-to-face and electronically).73 Another study of social-sexual behavior among 1,232 working men (n 5 405) and women (n 5 827) in the Los Angeles area found nonharassing sexual behavior to be very common, with 80% of the total sample reporting experience with such behavior. Indeed, according to the researchers, increased social contact between women and men in work groups and organizations has led to increased sexualization (e.g., flirting and romance) in the workplace.74 kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 287 12/6/11 5:10 PM 288 table 10–5 Part Three Group and Social Processes Behavioral Categories of Sexual Harassment CATEGORY DESCRIPTION BEHAVIORAL EXAMPLES Derogatory attitudes— impersonal Behaviors that reflect derogatory attitudes about men or women in general Obscene gestures not directed at target Sex-stereotyped jokes Derogatory attitudes— personal Behaviors that are directed at the target that reflect derogatory attitudes about the target’s gender Obscene phone calls Belittling the target’s competence Unwanted dating pressure Persistent requests for dates after the target has refused R Repeated requests to go out after work or school Sexual propositions Explicit requests for sexual I encounters Proposition for an affair Physical sexual contact Behaviors in which the harasser A makes physical sexual contact with the target R Embracing the target Kissing the target Physical nonsexual contact D Behaviors in which the harasser makes physical nonsexual , contact with the target Congratulatory hug Sexual coercion Requests for sexual encounters or forced encounters that Aare made a condition of employment D or promotion Threatening punishment unless sexual favors are given Sexual bribery C R I E N From an OB research standpoint, N sexual harassment is a complex and multifaceted problem. For example, a meta-analysis of 62 studies found women perceiving E a broader range of behaviors as sexual harassment (see Table 10–5), as opposed SOURCE: From M Rotundo, D Nguyen, and P R Sackett, “A Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Differences in Perceptions of Sexual Harassment,” Journal of Applied Psychology, October 2001, Article 914–922. Copyright © 2001 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted with permission. to what men perceived. Women and men tended to agree that sexual propositions and coercion qualified as sexual 1 harassment, but there was less agreement about other aspects of a hostile work environment.75 9 Constructive Managerial 0 Action Male and female employees can and often do work well together in groups. A survey of 387 male US govern2 ment employees sought to determine how they were affected by the growing number of female co-workers. T The researchers concluded, “Under many circumstances, including intergender interaction in work groups, frequent conS tact leads to cooperative and supportive social relations.”76 More recently, a field study of 1,158 US Air Force officers divided into mixed-gender teams for a five-week officer development program determined that “a higher female proportion within teams contributed to better team problem solving.”77 Still, managers need to take affirmative steps to ensure that the documented sexualization of work environments does not erode into sexual harassment. Whether perpetrated against women or men, sexual harassment is demeaning, unethical, and appropriately called “work environment pollution.” Moreover, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission holds employers legally accountable for behavior it considers sexually harassing. An expert on the subject explains: kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 288 12/6/11 5:10 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics 289 real WORLD // real PEOPLE: ethics A Costly EEOC Violation for Tyson Foods [Amanda] West told her trainer and her supervisor [at a Kentucky chicken processing plant] about sexual comments, stares and wolf-whistles as well as offensive touching and lewd gestures toward her by co-workers, whom she identified. The supervisor responded that she should not take offense—“that’s just how they treat their women over there”—and said she was “hot.” He then said he would look into it, asked her not to go to human resources and offered to move her to R a different production line. She agreed. The only other action the supervisor took was to “observe her for Ia few days.” C Two weeks passed while the harassment continA ued. . . . During her exit interview [when she quit after R only five weeks], she told a human resource manager about the harassment and the complaint she had made. The manager said he would investigate but did not. West filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), followed by her lawsuit. Outcome: A jury awarded West $1.2 million (punitive damages included). After an appeal, the 6th Circuit Court upheld the verdict in 2010. What are the main ethical and strategic business arguments against sexual harassment? Based on your work experience, how common is sexual harassment? Explain. SOURCE: Excerpted from S M Schaecher, “Five-Week Employee Wins $1.2 Million in Harassment Claim,” HR Magazine, July 2010, p 66. D , Example. What exactly is sexual harassment? TheAEqual Employment Oppor- tunity Commission (EEOC) says that unwelcome D sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute R is made a condition of emsexual harassment when submission to such conduct ployment; when submission to or rejection of sexual I advances is used as a basis for employment decisions; or when such conduct creates an intimidating, hostile, E interpreting Title VII of or offensive work environment. These EEOC guidelines the Civil Rights Act of 1964 further state that employers are responsible for the N actions of their supervisors and agents and that employers are responsible for the actions of other employees if the employer knowsN or should have known about the sexual harassment.78 E Importantly, ignorance of any sexual harassment1in the organization is not a viable legal defense for employers (see Real World/Real People). Beyond avoid9 ing lawsuits by establishing and enforcing antidiscrimination and sexual harass0 ment policies, managers need to be proactive. Diversity workshops including 79 how to identify and avoid sexual harassment are strongly recommended. 2 Threats to Group T Effectiveness S Even when managers carefully staff and organize task groups, group dynamics can still go haywire. Forehand knowledge of three major threats to group effectiveness—the Asch effect, groupthink, and social loafing—can help managers take necessary preventive steps. Because the first two problems relate to blind conformity, some brief background discussion is in order. Very little would be accomplished in task groups and organizations without conformity to norms, role expectations, policies, and rules and regulations. After all, deadlines, commitments, and product/service quality standards need to be established and adhered to if the organization is to survive. But conformity is a two-edged sword. Excessive or blind conformity can stifle critical thinking, kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 289 TO THE POINT What are the Asch effect, groupthink, and social loafing and how can they be prevented? 12/6/11 5:10 PM 290 Part Three Group and Social Processes the first line of defense against unethical conduct. Almost daily accounts in the popular media of executive misdeeds, insider trading scandals, price fixing, illegal dumping of hazardous wastes, and other unethical practices make it imperative that future managers understand the mechanics of blind conformity.80 The Asch Effect Nearly 60 years ago, social psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a series R of laboratory experiments that revealed I a negative side of group dynamics.81 Under the guise of a “perception test,” C Asch had groups of seven to nine volA unteer college students look at 12 pairs of cards such as the ones in Figure 10–4. R The object was to identify the line that “I caught Barclay lip-synching when everyone else was saying yes.” D was the same length as the standard line. Each individual was told to announce SOURCE: Harvard Business Review, December 2006, p 122. , his or her choice to the group. Since the differences among the comparison lines were obvious, there should have A been unanimous agreement during each of the 12 rounds. But that was not the case. D A Minority of One AllR but one member of each group were Asch’s confederates who agreed to systematically select the wrong line during seven of the I rounds (the other five rounds were control rounds for comparison purposes). The E subject who was being tricked. Group pressure remaining individual was the naive was created by having the naive N subject in each group be among the last to announce his or her choice. Thirty-one subjects were tested. Asch’s research question N subjects conform to a majority opinion that was was: “How often would the naive obviously wrong?” E Only 20% of Asch’s subjects remained entirely independent; 80% yielded to the pressures of group opinion at least once! And 58% knuckled under to the “immoral majority” at least twice.1Hence, the Asch effect, the distortion of individual judgment by a unanimous but incorrect opposition, was documented. 9 0 Asch’s experiment has been widely replicated A Managerial Perspective with mixed results. Both high2and low degrees of blind conformity have been T figure 10–4 The AschSExperiment Standard Line Card Comparison Lines Card 1 kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 290 2 3 12/6/11 5:10 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics 291 observed with various situations and subjects. Replications in Japan and Kuwait have demonstrated that the Asch effect is not unique to the United States.82 A 1996 meta-analysis of 133 Asch-line experiments from 17 countries found a decline in conformity among US subjects since the 1950s. Internationally, collectivist countries, where the group prevails over the individual, produced higher levels of conformity than individualistic countries.83 The point is not precisely how great the Asch effect is in a given situation or culture, but rather, managers committed to ethical conduct need to be concerned that the Asch effect even exists. For Jeffrey Skilling, the now-jailed former CEO of Enron, the Asch effect was something to cultivate and nurture. Consider this organizational climate for blind obedience: Example. Skilling was filling headquarters with his own troops. He was not look- R ing for “fuzzy skills,” a former employee recalls. His recruits talked about a soI Quality of life? Forget it. cialization process called “Enronizing.” Family time? Anybody who did not embrace the elbows-out culture “didn’t get it.” They were C “damaged goods” and “shipwrecks,” likely to be fired by their bosses at blistering A The culture turned paraannual job reviews known as rank-and-yank sessions. noid: former CIA and FBI agents were hired to enforce R security. Using “sniffer” programs, they would pounce on anyone e-mailing a potential competitor. The D to barge into offices and “spooks,” as the former agents were called, were known 84 confiscate computers. , Even isolated instances of blind, unthinking conformity seriously threaten the A effectiveness and integrity of work groups and organizations. Robert I Sutton, D a professor of management science at Stanford University, recently offered this blistering assessment of blind conformity: R I Example. Mindless imitation is among the most dangerous and widespread forms E of management idiocy. One of the dumbest excuses for screwing up is “everyone Nall, or all do the same inane else does it.” . . . When everyone else does nothing at thing, such collective stupidity makes people feel farNbetter than when they do the same, equally moronic things on their own.85 E Functional conflict and assertiveness, discussed1in Chapters 13 and 14, can help employees respond appropriately when they find themselves facing an im9 moral majority. Ethical codes focused on specific practices also can provide support and guidance. 0 2 T Why did President Lyndon B Johnson and his group S of intelligent White House LO.8 Groupthink advisers make some very unintelligent decisions that escalated the Vietnam War? Those fateful decisions were made despite obvious warning signals, including stronger than expected resistance from the North Vietnamese and withering support at home and abroad. Systematic analysis of the decision-making processes underlying the war in Vietnam and other US foreign policy fiascoes Asch effect Giving in to a unanimous but wrong opposition. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 291 12/6/11 5:10 PM 292 Part Three Group and Social Processes prompted Yale University’s Irving Janis to coin the term groupthink. Modern managers can all too easily become victims of groupthink, just like President Johnson’s staff, if they passively ignore the danger. Definition and Symptoms of Groupthink Janis defines groupthink as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”86 He adds, “Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, realGroup member diversity and an open ity testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group presdiscussion of the dangers of groupthink are 87 Unlike Asch’s subjects, who were strangers to each other, sures.” major lines of defense against both blind members of groups victimized by groupthink are friendly, tightly conformity and groupthink. Do you have R knit, and cohesive. the courage to speak out when you believe I of groupthink listed in Figure 10–5 thrived in things are going in the wrong direction? The symptoms US corporate boardrooms of the past where cohesive directors too C often caved in to strong-willed CEOs and signed off on bad decisions. But circumA stances have taken a positive turn: R D dawned with the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Example. A new era for directors Act of 2002. Then board members were hit with the frightening prospect of real , financial liability in a smattering of lawsuits that followed the corporate crime wave. Now the heat on directors is growing more intense. Their reputations are increasingly at risk when the companies they watch over are tainted by scandal. A Their judgment is being questioned by activist shareholders outraged by sky-high D pay packages. And investors and regulators are subjecting their actions to higher R when a director could get away with a quick scrutiny. Long gone are the days rubber-stamp of a CEO’s plans. I ... The old rules of civility that discouraged directors from asking managers tough or embarrassing questions areE eroding.88 figure 10–5 N N E Symptoms of Groupthink Lead to Defective Decision Making Symptoms of Groupthink 1. Invulnerability: An illusion that breeds excessive optimism and risk taking. 2. Inherent morality: A belief that encourages the group to ignore ethical implications. 3. Rationalization: Protects pet assumptions. 4. Stereotyped views of opposition: Causes group to underestimate opponents. 5. Self-censorship: Stifles critical debate. 6. Illusion of unanimity: Silence interpreted to mean consent. 7. Peer pressure: Loyalty of dissenters is questioned. 8. Mindguards: Self-appointed protectors against adverse information. 1 9 0 2 T S Decision-making defects 1. Few alternatives. 2. No reexamination of preferred alternatives. 3. No reexamination of rejected alternatives. 4. Rejection of expert opinions. 5. Selective bias of new information. 6. No contingency plans. SOURCES: Symptoms excerpted from I L Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy, Decisions and Fiascoes, 2E. Copyright © 1982 by Wadsworth, a part of Cengage Learning. Reproduced by permission. www.cengage.com/permission. Defects excerpted from G Moorhead, “Groupthink: Hypothesis in Need of Testing,” Group & Organization Studies, December 1982, p 434. Copyright © 1982 by Sage Publications. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 292 12/6/11 5:10 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics 293 Groupthink Research and Prevention Laboratory studies using college students as subjects validate portions of Janis’s groupthink concept. Specifically, it has been found that • Groups with a moderate amount of cohesiveness produce better decisions than low- or high-cohesive groups. • Highly cohesive groups victimized by groupthink make the poorest decisions, despite high confidence in those decisions.89 Janis believes prevention is better than cure when dealing with groupthink. He recommends the following preventive measures: 1. Each member of the group should be assigned the role of critical evaluator. This role involves actively voicing objections and doubts. R 2. Top-level executives should not use policy committees to rubber-stamp decisions that have already been made. I 3. Different groups with different leaders should C explore the same policy questions. A 4. Subgroup debates and outside experts should be used to introduce fresh R perspectives. 5. Someone should be given the role of devil’s D advocate when discussing major alternatives. This person tries to uncover every conceivable nega, tive factor. 6. Once a consensus has been reached, everyone should be encouraged to rethink their position to check for flaws.90 A D groups produce sound recThese antigroupthink measures can help cohesive ommendations and decisions.91 Facebook has its own unique approach to avoidR ing groupthink (see Real World/Real People on page 294). I favor of diversity; not only Avoiding groupthink is a powerful argument in racial and gender diversity, but diversity in age, background, religion, education, E and world views as well. LO.9 Social Loafing N N E Is group performance less than, equal to, or greater than the sum of its parts? Can three people, for example, working together accomplish less than, the same 1 An interesting study conas, or more than they would working separately? ducted more than a half century ago by a French9agricultural engineer named Ringelmann found the answer to be “less than.”92 In a rope-pulling exercise, 0 Ringelmann reportedly found that three people pulling together could achieve only two-and-a-half times the average individual2rate. Eight pullers achieved less than four times the individual rate. This tendency for individual effort to T social loafing.93 Let us decline as group size increases has come to be called briefly analyze this threat to group effectiveness S and synergy with an eye toward avoiding it. groupthink Janis’s term for a cohesive in-group’s unwillingness to realistically view alternatives. social loafing Decrease in individual effort as group size increases. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 293 12/6/11 5:11 PM 294 Part Three Group and Social Processes real WORLD // real PEOPLE How Groupthink Is “Hacked” at Facebook At the heart of the process is the notion of “hacking,” which [CEO Mark] Zuckerberg insists is not about breaking and entering: “It’s about being unafraid to break things in order to make them better.” . . . Determined to keep that mind-set alive as the company grows, Facebook has raised the all-nighter to an art form. “Hackathons,” which started when the site was just a handful of friends around a dining table, are now allhands meetings held every month or so. Any project, any idea is on the table. If you can find some friends to work on it with you, go for it. The company provides food, music, and beer. It sounds like so much code-boy BS, except that most everyone shows up, even the lawyers. Even Zuckerberg. And the sessions have produced an astonishing array of popular site features, including video messaging and chat. What other steps can Facebook employees take to avoid groupthink as the company continues to grow? R I C A R D Social Loafing Theory and Research Among the theoretical explana, are (1) equity of effort (“Everyone else is goofing tions for the social loafing effect SOURCE: Excerpted from E McGirt, “Most Innovative Companies: Facebook,” Fast Company, March 2010, p 110. off, so why shouldn’t I?”), (2) loss of personal accountability (“I’m lost in the crowd, so who cares?”), (3) motivational loss due to the sharing of rewards (“Why A others when everyone gets the same reward?”), should I work harder than the and (4) coordination loss as more D people perform the task (“We’re getting in each other’s way”). Laboratory studies refined R these theories by identifying situational factors that moderated the social loafing effect. I Social loafing occurred when • The task was perceived toEbe unimportant, simple, or not interesting.94 • Group members thoughtN their individual output was not identifiable.95 • Group members expected their co-workers to loaf.96 N But social loafing did not occur when group members in two laboratory studies E expected to be evaluated.97 Also, research suggests that self-reliant “individualists” are more prone to social loafing than are group-oriented “collectivists.” But individualists can be made more cooperative by keeping the group small and holding 1 each member personally accountable for results.98 Social loafing also was reduced 9 combination of individual and shared rewards in a recent study when a hybrid were employed.99 0 2 Today’s Online Workplaces Practical Implications in These findings demonstrate that social loafi T ng is not an inevitable part of group effort. Management can curb this threat to group effectiveness by making sure the task is S challenging and perceived as important. It also is a good idea to hold group members personally accountable for identifiable portions of the group’s task. Still, social loafing is a moving target requiring creative countermeasures in the Internet Age. Today’s digital workplaces are fertile ground for the growth of social loafing. Cyberloafing—defined as using the Internet for nonwork-related activities such as communicating with friends via e-mail and social media, Web surfing, shopping, and gaming—is commonplace. Virtual teams, discussed in the next chapter, have loosened traditional administrative oversight of employees.100 Table 10–6 lists problems and remedies for managers seeking to reduce social loafing in today’s online workplaces. kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 294 12/6/11 5:11 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics table 10–6 295 Dealing with Social Loafing in the Internet Age PROBLEM REMEDIES Cyberloafing • Spending work time on the Internet for nonwork activities; this could include shopping, managing an online business, surfing the Web, e-mailing jokes, updating social media accounts, Twitter, etc. • Fair and just employee computer monitoring • Internet, social media, and e-mail usage policies • Establishing norms of appropriate Internet use among employees Lack of effort in virtual teams/knowledge work • Lowering effort levels because it is difficult to observe and identify the impact of individual efforts on team performance • Substituting potentially less valuable maintenance activities for taskrelated effort • Ambiguity in relationship between effort and performance R • Stress individual and mutual I accountability for achieving team goals C when establishing team norms and rewards A mechanisms are in place • Ensuring to surface R and confront team conflict • FocusD on achieving both learning and performance goals , SOURCE: Excerpted from Table 1 in R E Kidwell, “Loafing in the 21st Century: Enhanced Opportunities—and Remedies—for Withholding Job Effort in the New Workplace,” Business Horizons, November–December 2010, pp 543–52. A D R Summary of Key Concepts I E 1. Identify the four sociological criteria of a group, and discuss the impact of social networking on group dynamics. Socio-N logically, a group is defined as two or more freely interacting individuals who share collective norms and goals andN have a common identity. Social networking sites such as E Facebook and Twitter have blurred the line between formal and informal groups by giving people unprecedented access to one’s personal life. This has magnified the long-1 standing dilemma of how friendly managers should be with their direct reports. They are urged to compartmen-9 talize their official and unofficial roles. 0 2. Describe the five stages in Tuckman’s theory of group development, and discuss the threat of group decay. The five2 stages in Tuckman’s theory are forming (the group comesT together), storming (members test the limits and each S other), norming (questions about authority and power are resolved as the group becomes more cohesive), performing (effective communication and cooperation help the group get things done), and adjourning (group members go their own way). According to recent research, group decay occurs when a work group achieves the “performing” stage and then shifts into reverse. Group decay occurs through de-norming (erosion of standards), de-storming (growing discontent and loss of cohesiveness), and de-forming (fragmentation and breakup of the group). 3. Distinguish between role conflict and role ambiguity. Organizational roles are sets of behaviors persons expect kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 295 cyberloafing Employees using the Internet for nonwork activities. of occupants of a position. One may experience role overload (too much to do in too little time), role conflict (conflicting role expectations), or role ambiguity (unclear role expectations). 4. Contrast roles and norms, and specify four reasons norms are enforced in organizations. While roles are specific to the person’s position, norms are shared attitudes that differentiate appropriate from inappropriate behavior in a variety of situations. Norms evolve informally and are enforced because they help the group or organization survive, clarify behavioral expectations, help people avoid embarrassing situations, and clarify the group’s or organization’s central values. 5. Distinguish between task and maintenance roles in groups. Members of formal groups need to perform both task (goal-oriented) and maintenance (relationship-oriented) roles if anything is to be accomplished. 6. Summarize the practical contingency management implications for group size. Laboratory simulation studies suggest decision-making groups should be limited to five or fewer members. Larger groups are appropriate when creativity, participation, and socialization are the main objectives. If majority votes are to be taken, odd-numbered groups are recommended to avoid deadlocks. 7. Discuss why managers need to carefully handle mixedgender task groups. Women face special group dynamics 12/6/11 5:11 PM 296 Part Three Group and Social Processes challenges in mixed-gender task groups. Steps need to be taken to make sure increased sexualization of work environments does not erode into illegal sexual harassment. 8. Describe groupthink, and identify at least four of its symptoms. Groupthink plagues cohesive in-groups that shortchange moral judgment while putting too much emphasis on unanimity. Symptoms of groupthink include invulnerability, inherent morality, rationalization, stereotyped views of opposition, self-censorship, illusion of unanimity, peer pressure, and mindguards. Critical evaluators, outside expertise, and devil’s advocates are among the preventive measures recommended by Irving Janis, who coined the term groupthink. 9. Define social loafing, and explain how managers can prevent it. Social loafing involves the tendency for individual effort to decrease as group size increases. This problem can be contained if the task is challenging and important, individuals are held accountable for results, and group members expect everyone to work hard. The Internet and virtual teams are fertile ground for social loafing. Cyberloafing can be curbed with policies and norms covering e-mail, Internet, and social media use. Members of virtual teams need to be held personally and mutually accountable for team results, capable of handing team conflict, and focused on both learning and performance goals. Key Terms Group, 269 Role overload, 279 Formal group, 270 Role conflict, 279 Informal group, 270 Role ambiguity, 280 Social networking site (SNS), 272 Norm, 280 Group cohesiveness, 275 Ostracism, 281 Roles, 278 Task roles, 283 OB in Action Case Study Unmasking Manly Men What can managers in white-collar firms learn from roughnecks and roustabouts on an offshore oil rig? That extinguishing macho behavior is vital to achieving top performance. That’s a key finding from our study of life on two oil platforms, during which we spent several weeks over the course of 19 months living, eating, and working alongside crews offshore. Oil rigs are dirty, dangerous, and demanding workplaces that have traditionally encouraged displays of masculine strength, daring, and technical prowess. But over the past 15 years or so the platforms we studied have deliberately jettisoned their hard-driving, macho cultures in favor of an environment in which men admit when they’ve made mistakes and explore how anxiety, stress, or lack of experience may have caused them; appreciate one another publicly; and routinely ask for and offer help. These workers shifted their focus from proving their masculinity to larger, more compelling goals: maximizing the safety and well-being of co-workers and doing their jobs effectively. The shift required a new attitude toward work, which was pushed from the top down. If you can’t expose errors and learn from them, management’s thinking went, you can’t be safe or effective. Workers came to appreciate that to improve safety and performance in a potentially deadly environment, they had to be open to new information that challenged their assumptions, and they had to acknowledge when they were wrong. Their altered stance revealed two kre29368_ch10_265-297.indd 296 R I C A R D , Maintenance roles, 283 Asch effect, 290 Groupthink, 292 Social loafing, 293 Cyberloafing, 294 A D R I E things: N First, that much of their macho behavior was not only unnecessary but actually got in the way of doing their N and second, that their notions about what constituted jobs; strong leadership needed to change. They discovered that E the people who used to rise to the top—the “biggest, baddest roughnecks,” as one worker described them—weren’t necessarily the best at improving safety and effectiveness. 1 the ones who excelled were mission-driven guys who Rather, cared 9 about their fellow workers, were good listeners, and were willing to learn. 0Over the 15-year period these changes in work practices, norms, 2 perceptions, and behaviors were implemented companywide. The company’s accident rate declined by 84%, T productivity (number of barrels produced), efficiency while (cost per barrel), and reliability (production “up” time) inS beyond the industry’s previous benchmark. creased But the changes had an unintended effect as well. The men’s willingness to risk a blow to their image—by, for example, exposing their incompetence or weakness when necessary in order to do their jobs well—profoundly influenced their sense of who they were and could be as men. No longer focused on affirming their masculinity, they felt able to behave in ways that conventional masculine norms would have precluded. If men in the hypermasculine environment of oil rigs can let go of the macho ideal and improve their performance, then men in corporate America might be able to 12/6/11 5:11 PM Chapter Ten Group Dynamics do likewise. Numerous studies have examined the costs of macho displays in contexts ranging from aeronautics to manufacturing to high tech to the law. They show that men’s attempts to prove their masculinity interfere with the training of recruits, compromise decision quality, marginal...
Purchase answer to see full attachment