Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Teaching Notes
When students have finished, select a group to share the results of their discussion. Ask
other groups how their results compare or contrast to that group’s.
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.
Ethical Dilemma
Is Social Loafing Unethical?
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Demonstrate how norms 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
As we discussed in this chapter, social loafing is one potential downside of working in
groups. Research suggests that regardless of the type of task—from games of Tug of War
to working on a group projects—research suggests that when working in a group, most
individuals contribute less than if they were working on their own. Sometimes, these
people are labeled shirkers, because they don’t fulfill their responsibilities as group
members. Other times, social loafing is overlooked, and the industrious employees do the
work alone to meet the group’s performance goals. Either way, social loafing is an ethical
dilemma.
Whether in class projects or in jobs we’ve held, most of us have experienced social
loafing in groups. We may even have been guilty ourselves. Although limiting group size,
holding individuals responsible for their contributions, setting group goals, and rewarding
both individual and group performance might help reduce the occurrence of social
loafing, in many cases people just try to work around shirkers rather than motivate them
to perform at higher levels.
Managers must determine what level of social loafing for groups and for individual
employees will be tolerated in terms of nonproductive meetings, performance
expectations, and counterproductive work behaviors. Employees must decide what limits
to social loafing they will impose on themselves and what tolerance they have for social
loafers in their workgroups.
Questions
9-25. Do group members have an ethical responsibility to report shirkers to leadership?
If you were working on a group project for a class and a group member was
loafing, would you communicate this information to the instructor? Why or why
not?
Answer: Yes, this information should be communicated to the instructor. Yes,
there is an ethical responsibility to communicate this to the shirking group
9-26. Do you think social loafing is always shirking (failing to live up to your
responsibilities)? Are there times when shirking is ethical or even justified?
Answer: Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when
working collectively than when working individually. So, yes, it is a type of
9-27. Social loafing has been found to be higher in individualist nations than in other
countries. Do you think this means we should tolerate shirking on the part of U.S.
students and workers to a greater degree than if someone else does it?
Answer: No, western cultures tend to be more individualistic. Everyone needs to
place emphasis on the goals of the group and attain them collectively. We should
Case Incident 1
The Calamities of Consensus
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: Reflective thinking
When it is time for groups to reach a decision, many turn to consensus. Consensus, a
situation of agreement, seems like a good idea. To achieve consensus, groups must
cooperate and collaborate, which ultimately will produce higher levels of camaraderie
and trust. In addition, if everyone agrees, then the prevailing wisdom is that everyone will
be more committed to the decision.
However, there are times when the need for consensus can be detrimental to group
functioning. Consider the recent “fiscal cliff” faced by the U.S. government toward the
end of 2012. The White House and Congress needed to reach a deal that would reduce the
swelling budget deficit. However, many Republicans and Democrats stuck to their party
lines, refusing to compromise. Many viewed the end product that achieved consensus as a
less than optimal solution. The public gave Congress an approval rating of only 13
percent, expressing frustration with the lack of compromise, but the group may not have
been able to function well partly because of the need for consensus.
If consensus is reached, does that mean the decision is the right one? Critics of
consensus-based methods argue that any decisions that are ultimately reached are inferior
to decisions using other methods such as voting or having team members provide input to
their leader, who then makes the final decision. Critics also argue that, because of
pressures to conform, groupthink is much more likely, and decisions reached through
consensus are simply those that are disliked the least by everyone.
Sources: D. Leonhardt, “When the Crowd Isn’t Wise,” The New York Times (July 8, 2012), p. SR BW 4; and K. Jensen, “Consensus Is
Poison! Who’s With Me?” Forbes (May 20, 2013), downloaded on May 30, 2013, from www.forbes.com.
Questions
9-28. Is consensus a good way for groups to make decisions? Why or why not?
Answer: This is an opinion question. Responses will vary by student.
9-29. Can you think of a time where a group of which you were a part relied on
consensus? How do you think the decision turned out?
Answer: This item can be assigned as a Discussion Question in
9-30. Martin Luther King Jr. once proclaimed, “A genuine
leader is not a seeker of consensus but a modeler of
consensus.” What do you think he meant by that
statement? Do you agree with it? Why or why not?
Answer: This is an opinion question. Responses will vary by student.
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.
Case Incident 2
Intragroup Trust and Survival
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: Reflective thinking
When 10 British Army soldiers on a 10-day training exercise descended into Low’s
Gully, a narrow chasm that cuts through Mt. Kinabalu in Borneo, each knew “the golden
rule for such expeditions—never split up.” Yet, the fittest three struggled out of the jungle
with a concussion, malaria, and infected wounds 19 days later; two more terribly ill
soldiers found a village the next day; and the remaining five emaciated and injured men
were rescued from a cave by a helicopter on day 33. What happened?
On a surface level, the near-tragic fracturing of the group began with a logical division of
labor, according to the training’s initiators, Lieutenant Colonel Neill and Major Foster:
Because the group would be one of mixed abilities, and the young British and
NCOs [non-commissioned officers] were likely to be fitter and more experienced
than the Hong Kong soldiers, the team would work in two halves on the harder
phases of the descent. The British, taking advantage of Mayfield’s expertise (in
rock climbing), would set up ropes on the difficult sections, while he [Neill] and
Foster would concentrate on bringing the Hong Kong soldiers down. Every now
and then the recce (reconnaissance) party would report back, and the expedition
would go on down in one unit until another reconnaissance party became
necessary.
The men reported that from then on, perilous climbing conditions, debilitating sickness,
and monsoon rains permanently divided the group. A review board found differently,
blaming Neill’s and Foster’s leadership and their decision to take some less-experienced
soldiers on the exercise.
No rulings were made about the near-catastrophic decisions to divide the group, but
closer inquiries show that this temporary workgroup of diverse members who were not
previously acquainted started out with a high level of intragroup trust that dissolved over
time. The resulting faultlines, based on members’ similarities and differences and the
establishment of ad hoc leaders, may have been inevitable.
Initially, all group members shared the common ground of soldier training, clear roles,
and volunteer commitment to the mission. When the leaders ignored the soldiers’
concerns about the severity of conditions, lack of preparation, and low level of
communication, however, trust issues divided the group into subgroups. The initial
reconnaissance party established common ground and trust that allowed them to complete
the mission and reach safety, even though they divided yet again. Meanwhile, the main
group that stayed with the leaders in the cave under conditions of active distrust fractured
further.
We will never know whether it would have been better to keep the group together.
However, we do know that this small group of soldiers trained to stay together for
survival fractured into at least four subgroups because they didn’t trust their leaders or
their group, endangering all their lives.
Sources: 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 (2014): 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): 764–95; and “The Call of
Malaysia’s ‘Conquerable’
Mount Kinabalu,” BBC, June 5, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33020356.
Questions
9-31. How was the common ground established by the reconnaissance subgroups
different from the common ground established by the cave subgroups?
Answer: At the beginning, all group members shared the common ground of
soldier training, clear roles, and volunteer commitment to the mission. Then trust
9-32. Do you think the group should have fractured as it did? Why or why not?
Answer: This item can be assigned as a Discussion Question in
9-33. When the exercise was designed, Neill created a buddy system based on similarity
of soldiers’ backgrounds (rank, unit, age, fitness, skills level). The first group out
of the jungle were assigned buddies and one other: two lance corporals and one
corporal from the same unit (regular army); ages 24–26 with good fitness levels;
all top roping and abseiling (TR&A) instructors. The second group out were
assigned buddies: a sergeant and a lance corporal from the same unit (elite regular
army); ages 25 and 37; good fitness levels; both with Commando Brigade skills.
The group left in the cave split into: a lieutenant colonel and a major (buddies);
one from the regular army and one from the part time territorial army; ages 46 and
54; fair fitness level; one TR&A and one ski instructor. The second faction was
the three from the Hong Kong unit—a lance corporal and two privates, all from
the Hong Kong unit; ages 24–32; fair to good fitness levels; one with jungle
training and two novices. Would you have set up the buddy system Neill did?
Why or why not, and if not, what would you have changed?
Answer: This is an opinion question. Responses will vary by student.
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.
My Management Lab
Go to mymanagementlab.com for Auto-graded writing questions as well as the
following Assisted-graded writing questions:
9-34. Considering Case Incident 1, what are some ways groups can improve the
effectiveness of consensus methods to make decisions?
9-35. After reading Case Incident 2, do you feel subgroups are good or bad? Why or
why not? What might be the alternative?
9-36. MyManagementLab Only – comprehensive writing assignment for this chapter.
Instructor’s Choice
The Team Breaks the Curse
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: Reflective thinking
Perhaps there has not been a stronger or longer rivalry than the one between the Boston
Red Sox and the New York Yankees. Until the fateful series in 2004, many Boston Red
Sox fans would ask, “How can the Boston Red Sox ever beat the New York Yankees and
win a World Series?” John W. Henry, the 54-year-old principal owner of the Boston Red
Sox, thinks he finally may have the answer—earn more money and build a better team.
Sounds simple, but in the realities of the big leagues and the astronomical salaries
commanded by players, simple is not always easy. However, Mr. Henry has a plan. Step
One: lose the loser image and the Curse of the Bambino (Babe Ruth). Until 2004, the Red
Sox had not won a World Series since they sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees almost a
century ago. Step Two: build a strong team where everyone has a distinct role to play and
plays that role very well. Mr. Henry has brought in a number of talented players from
pitchers to hitters that are expected to be All-Stars at their positions. Step Three: increase
revenues to fund the upgraded team. To date, the New York Yankees produce around
$340 million in revenues to the Boston Red Sox’s $230 million. Step Four: expand the
Red Sox Inc. enterprises so revenues will flow from other sources other than just selling
seats. Since all Red Sox games are sold out (and have one of the highest ticket prices in
the league), the organization was limited in revenue opportunities. Step Five: do all of the
above. This formula helped break the curse and seal a World Series victory!
Using a search engine of your own choosing, investigate the business and
management practices of the Boston Red Sox baseball organization (see
www.redsox.com). List what you perceive to be the organizational characteristics of
the Red Sox.
Characterize groups that are found in the organization (e.g., players, etc.). From your
search, what can you say about group norms, roles, rules, compliance, and deviance
in this organization?
Is this a dysfunctional team in your opinion? Support your opinion. Are there any
socialization experiences that could help this team to accomplish its goals and
objectives? Explain.
Instructor Discussion
This is an unusual assignment in that it asks students to examine an extremely successful
organization that has yet to reach its paramount goals and has been labeled a “loser”
because of its intense rivalry with the New York Yankees. Students will find a wealth of
information on the team’s website. Additional materials on the business dealings of the
Red Sox and various roles played by players and management alike can be found by
reviewing “Breaking the Curse,” by William C. Symonds in Business Week, April 26,
2004, pp. 75–83. Like other examples in the chapter, the Red Sox present a good example
of group and team behavior. Illustrations of success and failure (see History section on
the website) provide examples of how the team has fared over the years and the influence
of players and managers on the equation. For additional resource information, see
industry-specific publications such as Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal
(www.sportsbusinessjournal.com).
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.
Exploring OB Topics on the Web
This exercise contributes to:
Learning Objective: Distinguish between the different types of groups
Learning Outcome: Describe best practices for utilizing groups and work teams in organizations
AACSB: Reflective thinking
1. Read the following perspectives on groupthink and brainstorming, and then
discuss whether you feel they have a place in today’s organizations. Do people work
better creatively when teamed up, or does the danger of groupthink lurk?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-the-new-groupthink.html
?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lehrer
2. Peer pressure can be a positive thing; it is really just a way to communicate group
norms. To learn more about how to use positive peer pressure to prevent binge drinking
on campus visit http://www.csmonitor.com/1997/1027/102797.feat.learning.2.html.
3. Brainstorming is a group technique to encourage the development of creative
alternatives. Now that we know what it is, how do we do it? What would you do if you
were called upon to lead a brainstorming session? Visit this U.K. website for an overview
on how to conduct a brainstorming session at
http://www.brainstorming.co.uk/tutorials/preparingforbrainstorming.html. You might also
be interested in visiting the home page of this same website found at
http://www.brainstorming.co.uk/ contents.html, where you will find lots of creativity
exercises, puzzles, free training, articles, and more. Make a list of the five most important
things you must do to prepare for a brainstorming session and
bring it to class. What is the link between social loafing and group cohesiveness? Does
one enhance or detract from the other? Write a two-page paper on the topic. Conduct an
Internet search with these two terms.
