a. Research on faultlines has shown that splits such as these are generally
detrimental to group functioning and performance.
b. Overall, although research on faultlines suggests that diversity in groups is
a potential double-edged sword, recent work indicates they can be
strategically employed to improve performance.
II. Group Decision Making
A. Groups Versus the Individual
1. Strengths of group decision making:
a. Groups generate more complete information and knowledge.
b. They offer increased diversity of views.
c. This opens up the opportunity for more approaches and alternatives to be
considered.
d. The evidence indicates that a group will almost always outperform even
the best individual.
e. Groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution.
2. Weaknesses of group decision making:
a. It is time consuming.
b. There is a conformity pressure in groups.
c. One or a few members can dominate group discussion.
d. Group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility.
3. Effectiveness and efficiency
a. Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on the criteria
you use.
b. In terms of accuracy, group decisions will tend to be more accurate.
c. On the average, groups make better-quality decisions than individuals.
d. If decision effectiveness is defined in terms of speed, individuals are
superior.
e. If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effective than
individuals.
f. If effectiveness means the degree of acceptance the final solution achieves,
groups are better.
g. In terms of efficiency, group decision making consumes more work hours
than having an individual tackle the same problem.
i. The exceptions tend to be instances in which, to achieve comparable
quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a
great deal of time reviewing files and talking to other people.
h. In deciding whether to use groups, then, managers must assess whether
increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the reductions in
efficiency.
4. Summary
a. Groups offer an excellent vehicle for performing many of the steps in the
decision-making process.
b. They are a source of both breadth and depth of input for information
gathering.
c. When the final solution is agreed upon, there are more people in a group
decision to support and implement it.
d. Group decisions consume time, create internal conflicts, and generate
pressures toward conformity.
B. Groupthink and Groupshift
1. Groupthink is related to norms.
a. It describes situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the
group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views.
b. Groupthink is a disease that attacks many groups and can dramatically
hinder performance.
2. Groupshift
a. In groupshift, which describes the way of discussing a given set of
alternatives and arriving at a solution, group members tend to exaggerate
the initial positions they hold.
b. In some situations, caution dominates and there is a conservative shift,
while in others, groups tend toward a risky shift.
3. Groupthink
a. Groupthink appears closely aligned with the conclusions Solomon Asch
drew in his experiments with a lone dissenter.
b. Individuals who hold a position different from that of the dominant
majority are under pressure to suppress, withhold, or modify their true
feelings and beliefs.
i. As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement—
to be a positive part of the group—than to be a disruptive force, even if
disruption would improve effectiveness.
c. Groups that are more focused on performance than learning are especially
likely to fall victim to groupthink and to suppress the opinions of those
who do not agree with the majority.
d. Does groupthink attack all groups? No. It seems to occur most often when
there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive image of
their group they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective
threat to its positive image.
e. What can managers do to minimize groupthink?
i. First, they can monitor group size. People grow more intimidated and
hesitant as group size increases, and although there is no magic
number that will eliminate groupthink, individuals are likely to feel
less personal responsibility when groups get larger than about 10
members.
ii. Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial
role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid
expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of
deliberation.
iii. In addition, managers should appoint one group member to play the
role of devil’s advocate, overtly challenging the majority position and
offering divergent perspectives.
iv. Yet another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate active
discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group or
intensifying identity protection.
4. Group shift and group polarization
a. There are differences between group decisions and the individual
decisions of group members.
b. What appears to happen in groups is that the discussion leads members
toward a more extreme view of the position they already held.
i. Conservatives become more cautious, and more aggressive types take
on more risk.
ii. The group discussion tends to exaggerate the initial position of the
group.
c. Group polarization can be viewed actually as a special case of groupthink.
i. The decision of the group reflects the dominant decision-making norm
that develops during the group’s discussion.
ii. Whether the shift in the group’s decision is toward greater caution or
more risk depends on the dominant pre-discussion norm.
(a) The shift toward polarization has generated several explanations.
(i) It’s been argued, for instance, that discussion makes the
members more comfortable with each other and, thus, more
willing to express extreme versions of their original positions.
(ii) Another argument is that the group diffuses responsibility.
(iii) Group decisions free any single member from accountability
for the group’s final choice, so more extreme position can be
taken.
(iv) It’s also likely that people take on extreme positions because
they want to demonstrate how different they are from the
out-group.
(v) People on the fringes of political or social movements take on
ever- more extreme positions just to prove they are really
committed to the cause, whereas those who are more cautious
tend to take exceptionally moderate positions to demonstrate
how reasonable they are.
d. Using the findings of groupshift?
i. Recognize that group decisions exaggerate the initial position of the
individual members, that the shift has been shown more often to be
toward greater risk, and that which way a group will shift is a function
of the members’ pre-discussion inclinations.
C. Group Decision-Making Techniques
1. Most group decision making takes place in interacting groups.
a. In these groups, members meet face to face and rely on both verbal and
nonverbal interaction to communicate with each other.
b. Interacting groups often censor themselves and pressure individual
members toward conformity of opinion.
c. Brainstorming, the nominal group technique, and electronic meetings have
been proposed as ways to reduce many of the problems inherent in the
traditional interacting group.
2. Brainstorming is meant to overcome pressures for conformity in the
interacting group that retard the development of creative alternatives.
a. In a typical brainstorming session, a half dozen to a dozen people sit
around a table.
3. The nominal group technique restricts discussion or interpersonal
communication during the decision-making process.
a. Group members are all physically present, but members operate
independently.
b. Specifically, a problem is presented, and then the following steps take
place:
i. Before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes
down his or her ideas on the problem.
ii. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group.
iii. The group now discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them.
iv. Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas.
(a) The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final
decision.
c. The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits the
group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking, as does
the interacting group.
4. Each of the group-decision techniques has its own set of strengths and
weaknesses.
a. The choice depends on what criteria you want to emphasize and the
cost–benefit trade-off.
b. As Exhibit 9-5 indicates, an interacting group is good for achieving
commitment to a solution, brainstorming develops group cohesiveness,
and the nominal group technique is an inexpensive means for generating a
large number of ideas.
III. Summary and Implications for Managers
A. We can draw several implications from our discussion of groups.
B. First, norms control behavior by establishing standards of right and wrong. The
norms of a given group can help explain members’ behaviors for managers.
C. Second, status inequities create frustration and can adversely influence
productivity and willingness to remain with an organization.
D. Third, the impact of size on a group’s performance depends on the type of task.
Larger groups are associated with lower satisfaction.
E. Fourth, cohesiveness may influence a group’s level of productivity, depending on
the group’s performance-related norms.
F. Fifth, diversity appears to have a mixed impact on group performance, with some
studies suggesting that diversity can help performance and others suggesting it
can hurt it.
G. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced tension and job dissatisfaction.
H. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced tension and job
dissatisfaction. Specific implications for managers are below:
a. Recognize that groups can dramatically affect individual behavior in
organizations, to either positive or negative effect. Therefore, pay
special attention to roles, norms, and cohesion—to understand how
these are operating within a group is to understand how the group is
likely to behave.
b. To decrease the possibility of deviant workplace activities, ensure that
group norms do not support antisocial behavior.
c. Pay attention to the status aspect of groups. Because lower-status
people tend to participate less in group discussions, groups with high
status differences are likely to inhibit input from lower-status members
and reduce their potential.
d. Use larger groups for fact-finding activities and smaller groups for
action-taking tasks. With larger groups, provide measures of individual
performance.
e. To increase employee satisfaction, make certain people perceive their
job roles accurately.
Myth or Science?
Gossip and Exclusion Are Toxic For Groups
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objectives: Show how role requirements change in different situations; Demonstrate how norms
exert influence on an individual’s behavior
Learning Outcome: Describe best practices for utilizing groups and work teams in organizations
AACSB: Diversity and multicultural work environment; Reflective thinking
This is not necessarily true. But it’s certainly counterintuitive, so let’s explore the
conditions.
What is gossip? Most of us might say gossip is talking about others, sharing rumors, and
speculating about others’ behaviors; gossip affects a person’s reputation. We might also
say gossip is malicious, but according to researchers, it can serve positive social
functions, too. Prosocial gossip can expose behavior that exploits other people, which can
lead to positive changes. For example, if Julie tells Chris that Alex is bullying Summer,
then Chris has learned about Alex’s poor behavior through gossiping. Chris might refuse
to partner with Alex on a work project, which might limit Alex’s opportunities with the
organization, preventing him from bullying more people. Alternatively, as the gossip
spreads, Alex might feel exposed for his behavior and conform to group expectations
against bullying behavior. In fact, according to research, Alex is likely to cooperate with
the group in response to the gossip, and others hearing and spreading the gossip are likely
also to cooperate by not acting on their impulses toward bad behavior.
What about excluding Alex? There are two types of exclusion in the workplace: leaving
someone out of a group, and ostracizing an individual. Both lead to the same end—the
person isn’t part of the group—but while simply leaving someone out of a group might
not send a message of exclusion, ostracism certainly does. Ostracism is more of a felt
punishment than gossip since it is more direct. Research indicates that ostracized
individuals cooperate to a greater degree when they are around the group to show a
willingness to conform, hoping to be invited back into the group.
Can gossip and ostracism work together? Yes, according to a recent study. When subjects
were given an opportunity to gossip about the work of another subject, that subject
cooperated more than before; when the opportunity to gossip was paired with the ability
to ostracize, that subject cooperated to a much greater degree.
Thus, gossip and exclusion may provide groups with benefits, at least when the gossip is
confined to truthful work-related discussion, when the opportunity still exists to rejoin the
group with full standing, and when the group norms are positive.
Sources: M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, “The Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An Integrative Review,” Perspectives on
Psychological
Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245–74; M. Feinberg, R. Willer, and M. Schultz, “Gossip and Ostracism Promote Cooperation in Groups,”
Psychological Science 25, no. 3 (2014): 656–64; and I. H. Smith, K. Aquino, S. Koleva, and J. Graham, “The Moral Ties That Bind…
Even to Out-Groups: The Interactive Effect of Moral Identity and the Binding Moral Foundations,” Psychological Science (2014):
1554–62.
Class Exercise
1. Divide the class into groups of three to five students each.
2. Ask each group to discuss gossip and exclusion using social media.
3. Among the things they should address is how gossip and exclusion via social
media differs from face to face interaction. Which is more effective? Which
could hurt or harm a group more?
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.
An Ethical Choice
Using Peer Pressure as an Influence Tactic
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Demonstrate how norms and status exert influence on an individual’s behavior
Learning Outcome: Describe best practices for utilizing groups and work teams in organizations
AACSB: Ethical understanding and reasoning; Reflective thinking
We’ve all experienced peer pressure, and it can be hard to behave differently from your
friends and coworkers. As more work in organizations is performed in groups and teams,
the possibilities and pitfalls of such pressure have become an increasingly important
ethical issue for managers.
Peer pressure can be a positive force in some ways. In groups or departments where high
effort and performance are the norms, peer pressure from coworkers, whether direct or
indirect, can encourage high performance from those not meeting expectations. For
example, vehicle accidents at a Ghanaian gold mine were lowered when good drivers,
rather than managers or staff professionals, trained new drivers. A team with a norm
toward behaving ethically could also use peer pressure directly to minimize negative
behavior. Thus, peer pressure can promote all sorts of good behaviors, from donating to
charity to working for the Salvation Army.
However, as the chapter has shown, peer pressure can also be destructive. It can create a
feeling of exclusion in those who do not go along with group norms and can be very
stressful and hurtful for those who don’t see eye-to-eye with the rest of the group. Peer
pressure itself might become an unethical practice that unduly influences workers’
behavior and thoughts. And while groups might pressure others into performing good
behaviors, they can just as easily pressure them into performing bad behaviors.
Should you use group peer pressure? As a leader, you may need to. One recent survey
found that only 6 percent of leaders reported being able to successfully influence their
employees. If you do use peer pressure to encourage individuals to work toward team
goals and behave consistently with organizational values, it can enhance ethical
performance. But your behavior should emphasize acceptance and rewarding of positive
behavior, rather than rejection and exclusion, as a means of getting everyone to behave
consistently in a group.
Sources: Based on: A. Verghese, “The Healing Power of Peer Pressure,” Newsweek (March 14, 2011), www.newsweek.com; T.
Rosenberg, Join the Club: How Peer Pressure Can Transform the World (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011); and J. Meer,
“Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Peer Pressure in Charitable Solicitation,” Journal of Public Economics 95, no. 7–8 (2011), pp.
926–941; and L. Potter, “Lack Influence at Work? Why Most Leaders Struggle to Lead Positive Change,” The Wall Street Journal
(May 14, 2013), downloaded on May 28, 2013, from www.online.wsj.com.
Class Exercise
1. Divide the class into teams of three to five students each.
2. Ask each team to view scenes from the movie The Music Man. The first can be
seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI and the second at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npHJ5Dzrjx8&feature=related.
3. These scenes are important—first is the scene where Professor Hill is looking for
a problem that affects the people of River City, and he breaks into the song
Trouble. Right Here in River City. The second is the scene at the high school gym
for the Fourth of July ceremony that ends with the song Seventy-Six Trombones.
4. Ask students to evaluate how group pressure is used by Hill to sway the behavior
of the town’s people in the direction he desires. They should evaluate the process
as follows:
a. Hill finds a subject that’s important to the townspeople—the morals of their
children.
b. Hill persuasively targets that common concern using very persuasive
argument about the dangers, even if they are not really all that serious.
c. His actions at the Fourth of July ceremony thrust the peoples’ opinions into
the idea that occupying the children in a summer band will prevent the moral
danger.
d. People come together as a group with a social norm that the band is a
legitimate solution to the common perceived problem.
e. This is a manipulative use of the concept that develops quickly. Could this
technique be used to promote positive behaviors in a group?
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.
Personal Inventory Assessments
Communicating Supportively
Are you a supportive person? Take this PIA to find out if you communicate supportively.
Career OBjectives
Can I fudge the numbers and not take the blame?
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Describe how issues of cohesiveness and diversity can be integrated for group
effectiveness
Learning Outcome: Describe best practices for utilizing groups and work teams in organizations
AACSB: Diversity and multicultural work environment; Reflective thinking
I’ve got a great workgroup, except for one thing: the others make me omit negative
information about our group’s success that I’m in charge of as the treasurer. They gang up
on me, insult me, and threaten me, so in the end, I report what they want. They say
omitting the negative information is not really wrong, and it doesn’t violate our
organization’s rules, but on my own I would report everything. I need to stay in the group
or I’ll lose my job. If we are called out on the numbers, can I just put the blame on the
whole group? — Jean-Claude
Dear Jean-Claude:
The short answer is that, since you are in a leadership role in the group, you may not have
the option of blaming the others. Further, you may be held individually accountable as a
leader for the outcomes of this situation.
Your dilemma is not unusual. Once we think of ourselves as part of a collective, we want
to stay in the group and can become vulnerable to pressures to conform. The pressure
you’re getting from multiple members can make you aware that you’re in the minority in
the group, and taunting can make you feel like an outsider or lesser member; therefore
threats to harm your group standing may feel powerful.
So you have a choice: Submit to the pressure and continue misrepresenting your group’s
success, or adhere to the responsibility you have as the treasurer and come clean. From an
ethical standpoint, we hope you don’t consider the first option an acceptable choice. To
make a change, you may be able to use social identification to your advantage. Rather
than challenging the group as a whole, try meeting with individual group members to
build trust, talking to each as fellow members of a worthy group that can succeed without
any ethical quandaries. Don’t try to build a coalition; instead, build trust with individuals
and change the climate of the group to value ethical behavior. Then the next time you
need to report the numbers, you can call upon the group’s increased ethical awareness to
gain support for your leadership decisions.
Sources: M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, “The Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An Integrative Review,” Perspectives on
Psychological Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245–74; M. A. Korsgaard, H. H. Brower, and S. W. Lester, “It Isn’t Always Mutual: A Critical
Review of Dyadic Trust,” Journal of Management 41, no. 1 (2015): 47–70; R. L. Priem and P. C. Nystrom, “Exploring the Dynamics
of Workgroup Fracture: Common Ground, Trust-With- Trepidation, and Warranted Distrust,” Journal of Management 40, no. 3
(2014): 674–795.
Point/Counterpoint
People Are More Creative When They Work Alone
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Distinguish between different types of groups
Learning Outcome: Describe best practices for utilizing groups and work teams in organizations
AACSB: Reflective thinking
Point
I know groups are all the rage. Businesses are knocking down walls and cubicles to create
more open, “collaborative” environments. “Self-managing teams” are replacing the
traditional middle manager. Students in universities are constantly working on group
projects, and even young children are finding themselves learning in small groups.
I also know why groups are all the rage. Work, they say, has become too complex for
individuals to perform alone. Groups are better at brainstorming and coming up with
creative solutions to complicated problems. Groups also produce higher levels of
commitment and satisfaction—so long as group members develop feelings of
cohesiveness and trust one another.
But for every group that comes up with a creative solution, I’ll show you twice as many
individuals who would come up with a better solution had they only been left alone.
Consider creative geniuses like DaVinci, Newton, and Picasso. Or more recently, Steve
Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple Computer. All were introverts who toiled by
themselves. According to Wozniak, “I’m going to give you some advice that might be
hard to take. That advice is: Work alone…not on a committee. Not on a team.”
But enough anecdotal evidence. Research has also shown that groups can kill creativity.
One study found that computer programmers at companies that give them privacy and
freedom from interruptions outperformed their counterparts at companies that forced
more openness and collaboration. Or consider Adrian Furnham, an organizational
psychologist whose research led him to conclude that “business people must be insane to
use brainstorming groups.” People slack off in groups, and they’re afraid to communicate
any ideas that might make them sound dumb. These problems don’t exist when people
work alone.
So heed Picasso’s advice: “Without great solitude, no serious work is possible.”
Counterpoint
I’ll grant your point that there are circumstances in which groups can hinder creative
progress, but if the right conditions are put in place, groups are simply much better at
coming up with novel solutions to problems than are individuals. Using strategies such as
the nominal group technique, generating ideas electronically rather than face to face, and
ensuring that individuals do not evaluate others’ ideas until all have been generated are
just a few ways you can set up groups for creative success.
The fact of the matter is that problems are too complex these days for individuals to
effectively perform alone. Consider the Rovers launched by NASA to roam around Mars
collecting data. An accomplishment like that is made possible only by a group, not a lone
individual. Steve Wozniak’s collaboration with Steve Jobs is what really made Apple sail
as a company.
In addition, considerable research information shows that the most influential research is
conducted by teams of academics, rather than individuals. Indeed, if you look at recent
Nobel Prize winners in areas such as economics, physics, and chemistry, the majority
have been won by academics who collaborated on the research.
So if you want creativity, two heads are in fact better than one.
Sources: S. Cain, “The Rise of the New Groupthink,” The New York Times (January 15, 2012), pp. 1, 6; and C. Faure, “Beyond
Brainstorming: Effects of Different Group Procedures on Selection of Ideas and Satisfaction with the Process,” Journal of Creative
Behavior 38 (2004), pp. 13–34.
Class Exercise:
1. Divide the class into paired teams of three to five students each.
2. Assign one team in each pair to take the Point position and the other in the pair to
take the Counterpoint position.
3. Have each side prepare a presentation to support its position.
4. Have each pair present the Point and Counterpoint arguments.
5. Ask the class to vote on the debate that was the most creative, well supported, and
persuasive.
Teaching Notes
This exercise is applicable to face-to-face classes or synchronous online classes such as
BlackBoard 9.1, Breeze, WIMBA, and Second Life Virtual Classrooms. See
http://www.baclass.panam.edu/imob/SecondLife for more information.