Answers to Cooperative and Individual Tests
I. Cooperative Exam ONE
Multiple-Choice
process.
member. It is appropriate, not Me-oriented, to insist on meeting a deadline if a
member is affecting the group negatively by not being productive.
Information is difficult to send from the bottom to the top of the organizational
hierarchy without distortion. Negative information is usually kept from top
echelons of the organization if possible.
There are plenty of examples of successful groups in individualist cultures,
although working effectively in groups is more challenging in individualist
cultures.
cultures; individuals are encouraged to stand apart from the crowd.
considering the capabilities of the individual group members.
membership has already been established; same for group responsibility norm.
group goals if the group hopes to be effective.
True-False
groups grow large.
“play it safe” or because there are more members to argue for a conservative
decision.
between phases in non-sequential fashion.
social acceptance, support, companionship, friendship, and recognition for group
members.
mutually exclusive.
group phenomenon.
group.
responsibility (e.g., as a parent with a child). Situations (context) need to be
considered.
experiences are enjoyable, even thrilling.
extinguish secondary tension may produce avoidance of real issues that cause
problems for groups.
cultures, on average, but there is still a fair amount of conformity in U. S. culture.
groups and orderliness.
II. Individual Accountability Exam ONE
Multiple-Choice:
establishment of rules for boundary control.
explanations provided by research.
increase.
seize the floor and women interrupt primarily to offer support or ask for
information.
increase tension.
True-False
Pressure to agree or keep dissent quiet is thus greater in smaller groups.
for the group is less important.
view and willingness to take risks or play it safe, not individual members having
more extreme disagreements with each other.
III. Cooperative Exam TWO
Multiple-Choice
emergence but accepting accountability is largely irrelevant when you may have
done little or nothing to be accountable for until you become leader. Expressing
strong opinions can create dissension.
for it to be competition), answer 3 is also individual achievement (no one is
defeated to get the award), and 4 is cooperation (teamwork).
indifference is not indicated directly (telling you that you will be ignored).
reciprocation.
provided opportunities for insults, derision, and fighting, and creating an outside
enemy can produce intragroup cooperation but it creates intergroup hostility and
only works within a group until the enemy is defeated. If your team is defeated
by the enemy it typically provokes blaming and intragroup conflict.
leadership model. Laissez-faire is not even recognized as a style in the situational
minorities to improve their chances of emerging as group leaders.
necessary but not sufficient to be an effective leader (verbal skills). These same
traits may not carry over to other groups, however, as even necessary traits.
situations.
work against each other on controversial issues. Juries shouldn’t operate as a
team. They are deliberative groups whose members owe no allegiance to the
group. A group of friends playing golf is hardly a team. Usually each person is
trying to compete against the others. Cheerleading squad has a team identity, a
challenging goal, members with complementary skills, and members must work
together (teamwork) to accomplish the mission.
“the best” group members destroys teamwork.
empowerment; hierarchy is the enemy of empowerment; making
recommendations that may just be ignored in an organizational hierarchy (quality
circles) doesn’t empower. Recommendations must be implemented.
True-False
obey conversational rules about waiting one’s turn before speaking. Breaking
into a conversation to seize the floor is competitive interrupting.
role repeatedly even when the role is inappropriate.
they do want as leader (process of eliminating the undesirables first).
evaluation (“silly,” and in what way is it silly?).
They aren’t working together on a challenging goal (mission), creating a team
identity, displaying complementary skills, empowering each other and the group,
and so forth.
directly linked to effective leadership.
few cornerbacks.
been very effective.
IV. Individual Accountability Exam TWO
Multiple-Choice
encourage competition and promote dissension.
relevant for emerging as leader initially) as Nixon and many sports coaches have
learned. Results count much more. In some cases leaders have wanted to resign
but members beg them to stay.
conflict occurred (guards didn’t play prisoners simultaneously).
appropriate styles.
True-False
leadership is an adaptive process. The participative style is not always
appropriate especially when follows’ readiness level is low.
and women.
communication competence.
thus disempowering those not given decision –making power.
single role.
V. Cooperative Exam THREE
Multiple-Choice
information that supports an emerging agreement is confirmation bias.
example that could be unrepresentative of the larger phenomenon.
maintain harmony; individualist cultures tend to prefer power-forcing (them vs.
us hypercompetitiveness).
circumstances as a last resort after other styles have failed.
unavailable except from the individual with the information. Information
complexity does not in itself make information a power resource. If so complex
that no one in the group can decipher it, then the information may be quite
useless.
constructive anger. Anger can be reciprocated without it being intense or long-
lasting. Asymmetry is a chief method of dealing with the rage of others.
different but complementary tactics of collaboration.
specific resistance strategy characterized by feigning stupidity to get out of some
perceived onerous task. She does not use loss of motor function because she isn’t
exhibiting clumsiness by breaking things, etc.
participation in the matter and the changes have significant effects on group
members.
and includes tag questions (seeming to ask for permission).
members unsatisfied with the process and uncommitted to the outcome if they are in
the minority.
appropriate especially if it could cause harm, and it isn’t communicating the full
range of thoughts and feelings any old way—it is with confidence and skill
(communication competence).
True-False
members wish to accept the consequences.
encouraged; others are uninformed.
analyzing the problem adequately.
against the group but to further the group goals.
the information.
conflicts should be avoided initially.
problem solving and conflict management. They are not compromises because no
party gives up anything important in order to settle the conflict.
conclusion of tactical tardiness.
and quality of the information, about the unknown based on the known.
VI. Individual Accountability Exam THREE
Multiple-Choice
power resource, legitimate authority that produces obedience is the
power resource.
decision-making.
groups shouldn’t accept unanimity as valid if little deliberation has taken
place.
True-False
to cope with information overload.
VIIII. Cooperative Exam FOUR Twelve Angry Men
Multiple-Choice
tried to ram his point of view down the other jurors throats.
(threatening, ridiculing, trying to win a contest, pressuring, insisting on their position
and no other).
was meaningful because the decision would free the defendant or send him to his
death; despite criticism and ridicule, every member was listened to because some
jurors always stepped in to insist each participant be heard. The jurors were
structurally interdependent because they couldn’t finish their task without consensus.
All jurors were held accountable for their positions and statements throughout the
deliberations. They continually had to justify their points of view and claims.
always involved so laissez-faire was never used by him, and he didn’t delegate any
responsibility to anyone—it wasn’t his place to do so.
is no seduction used (no bribe, etc.), he is ostracized (“You’re all alone”) by being
made to feel apart from the group; he is never coerced (threatened, ridiculed, etc.).
expertise, offers no scarce information, and does not hand out rewards.
jurors. There are also instances of empowerment such as when the old man (#9) is
encouraged to speak and he has impact on the discussion and decisions, and the jury
as a whole has the autonomy to decide the defendant’s fate; no one else will
intervene and make the decision.
baseball game than deliberating), was disrespectful to the old man and the architect,
and there was no real commitment to excellence—he made up his mind and didn’t
want to discuss the evidence at all.
sure the defendant was not guilty, but he wanted to examine the evidence (test the
strength of the case). He had one brief “fight” with juror #3 but this was fleeting and
hardly a primary role. He was always respectful of other jurors’ desire to contribute
so he wasn’t a stagehog, and he never had any particular zealous cause to impose on
other jurors except the main task—determine the innocence or guilt of the defendant.
other jurors (e.g., why would defendant go back and get the knife?). He was never an
isolate or a fighter-controller.
hypercompetitive (“I’m the competitive type”), says inappropriate things to fellow
jurors (“I’ll kill you,” “bunch of little old ladies”), and is Me-oriented throughout
(seems to want to find the defendant guilty because his own son hurt him deeply
(“Lousy kids…”).
together; they spend a lot of time arguing with each other as though the deliberations
were a contest to win.
evidence is convincing, but he is not aggressive in pushing his point of view and he
is never passive. He always speaks his mind directly.
votes with him; that is an outright yielding to the group. He mostly uses
collaborating (confrontation and smoothing). He is not competitive; he doesn’t
approach the deliberations as a contest to be won, but only an important decision to
be made judiciously.
#8 and especially with #11 (insulting him for his immigrant background and
allegedly “telling us how to run things”). He was too involved to be an isolate and he
generally let others speak and he spoke but didn’t try to monopolize the
conversation.
was applied. He appeared nervous about conflict and disagreement and tried to avoid
direct confrontation. He mostly watched unless confronted directly, which made him
anxious and ineffectual.
seems more aimed at making a point and, though intense, has no duration. It also
seems justified and constructive overall. #3, however, meets both variables of
intensity and duration for destructive anger. #4 and #6 exhibit only mild anger
infrequently (no intensity or duration).
True-False
satisfied with the process or outcome and gave no impression that he was committed
to defending the jury decision to outsiders. Juror #3 also was suspect regarding
commitment. He caves in seemingly from exhaustion.
faulty inferences.
insults. This is a critical element of principled negotiation.
decision but corrected errors that no single juror would likely have deduced. Jury
deliberations produced a closer, more thoughtful examination of the evidence. The
level of analysis of the evidence was far superior to individuals working alone and
merely pooling conclusions. Jurors fed off of each other’s analysis and presentation
of information.
man’s claim, based on the known, or the old man’s testimony and estimate of time).
This inference was questioned by #8 and proven wrong.
really listening to his arguments.
Being quiet and not very articulate when speaking makes you a prime candidate for
elimination from leader consideration.
necessary antecedent of groupthink. No one was going along to get along.
accusation is harsh and combative.
continue.
#10 with help from #7. There was lots of defensiveness and little effort to cooperate
throughout most of the deliberations.
justification for giving up and advocating a hung jury. He seems to have tired of
fighting and wants to avoid any further battle.
him; #3 repeatedly calls jurors who disagree with him “bleeding hearts” and “little
old ladies.”
positions, but #10 is obnoxious, bossy, and he expresses strong unqualified
assertions—all prime characteristics for elimination from leader emergence.
IX. Individual Accountability 12 Angry Men Exam
Multiple Choice
certitude that he was correct at every juncture of the deliberations, communicated
superiority, especially compared to “those people,” and negatively evaluated anyone
who disagreed with him.
female witness wearing glasses, and clarified several points about the eye witness
testimony.
Negative synergy occurs when the entire group as a whole makes a disastrous
decision. The jury made a very defensible decision at the end.
jury), and he could demonstrate the proper technique for using such a knife
(expertise).
jurors use the “you’re just wasting everyone’s time” and “what if he really did kill
his father and we let him go” tactic, coercion is used in the form of ridicule and
shouting, even a near fistfight with #3, and #8 is made to feel apart from the rest of
the group, all alone in his dissent. #8 even feels it necessary to leave the room and go
to the restroom as the vote is taken to see if anyone will join him (the old man does).
True-False
unqualified assertions, was bossy and dictatorial, and yelled a lot (irritating
communication pattern).
disagreed and was disagreeable doing it because he’d already made up his
mind.
abrasive and clearly wanted to “win” the argument (all characteristics of power–
forcing style).