Chapter 9 Foundations of Group Behavior Page
A. Introduction
1. Work groups are not unorganized mobs; they have properties that shape
members’ behavior and help explain and predict individual behavior within
the group, as well as the performance of the group itself.
a. Some of these properties are roles, norms, status, size, cohesiveness, and
diversity.
B. Group Property 1: Roles
1. Introduction
a. All group members are actors, each playing a role.
b. We are required to play a number of diverse roles, both on and off our
jobs.
2. Role perception: One’s view of how one is supposed to act in a given
situation is a role perception.
3. Role expectations: How others believe you should act in a given situation.
a. When role expectations are concentrated into generalized categories, we
have role stereotypes.
b. The psychological contract is an unwritten agreement that exists between
employees and their employer.
c. If role expectations as implied are not met, expect negative effects on
employee performance and satisfaction.
4. Role conflict: When an individual is confronted by divergent role
expectations.
a. At the extreme, two or more role expectations are mutually contradictory.
b. Within organizations, most employees are simultaneously in occupations,
workgroups, divisions, and demographic groups, and these identities can
conflict when the expectations of one clash with the expectations of
another.
c. During mergers and acquisitions, employees can be torn between their
identities as members of their original organization and of the new parent
company.
i. Multinational organizations also have been shown to lead to dual
identification—with the local division and with the international
organization.
5. Role Play and Assimilation
a. Zimbardo’s prison experiment
i. One of the most illuminating role and identity experiments was done a
number of years ago by Stanford University psychologist Philip
Zimbardo and his associates. They created a “prison” in the basement
of the Stanford psychology building, hired at , a day, two dozen
emotionally stable, physically healthy, law-abiding students who
scored “normal average” on extensive personality tests, randomly
assigned them the role of either “guard” or “prisoner,” and established
some basic rules.
ii. It took little time for the “prisoners” to accept the authority positions
of the “guards” and for the mock guards to adjust to their new
authority roles. Consistent with social identity theory, the guards came
291