Use of Groups and Teams in an Organization

profilemisha42000
BibliU-Print-9781284183269-2.pdf

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

▶ Group Norms Every group has a set of norms, which is an implied code of conduct about what is acceptable and unacceptable member behavior. Norms can be written or unwritten; positive, negative, or neutral; and applied to all members of the group or only to certain members. In addition, groups will apply “punishment” or sanctions to members whose behavior deviates from the group’s norms. Norms can dictate the performance level of groups (e.g., high- or low-productivity work groups), the appearance of group members (e.g., bankers wear dark suits), or the social arrangement within the group (the chair of the committee sits at the head of the conference table).

Most organizations have formal rules of conduct, which are delineated in their policies and procedures manuals. For example, a hospital would have written policies on clinical research protocols, infection-control procedures for handling blood and other body fluids, the proper attire to be worn in operating room suites, and processes to ensure that the correct patient (and correct body part) is operated on (see Exhibit 16-2).

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Exhibit 16-2 Surgical Checklist

The implementation of a surgical checklist that guides the surgical team through a series of tasks and communications before, during, and after the surgery represents an example of written formal rules of conduct. Research by the World Health Organization found that implementing such a checklist reduced postoperative complications and death rates by over 30% (Haynes et al., 2009).

WHO Surgical Safety Checklist, Retrieved from

https://www.who.int/patientsafety/topics/safe-surgery/checklist/en/

However, in most instances, group norms (i.e., acceptable behavior of group members) are unwritten and learned by members through their interactions with others. For example, Crandall (1988) studied groups of cheerleaders, dancers, and female sorority members with high rates of eating disorders and noted that these groups adopted the behaviors of binging and purging as

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

normal methods of weight control. The most popular members of the group binged and purged at the rate established by the norms of the group, and those who did not binge and purge when they first joined the group were more likely to take up the practice the longer they were members of the group. This alignment of behavior within a group is part of an individual’s socialization process. This process of socialization explains how unwritten norms become the “standards” for the group, as members begin to internalize the group’s norms as their own behavior standards. As such, norms do not just maintain order within the group; they also maintain the group itself (Youngreen & Moore, 2008).

Since most group norms are unwritten, they are usually not easily identified until violated. When group norms are violated, members of the group will attempt to convince the “deviant” to conform to the group’s standards of behavior. If the use of persuasion is not successful, the group may punish the member by withdrawing any “special” status that the member may hold, or the group may psychologically reject (e.g., ignore) the member. The final consequence for a member who refuses to conform would be dismissal from the group. Through this process, members learn the range or boundaries of acceptable behavior within a group. For example, Feldman (1984) describes the norms about productivity that frequently develop among factory workers. A person produces 50 widgets and is praised by their coworkers; a person produces 60 widgets and is sharply teased by coworkers; a person produces 70 widgets and is ostracized by coworkers. If

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

the group norm is that producing 50 widgets allows for an acceptable pace of work, the group member who produces 70 widgets may either make the rest of the group look lazy or cause management to raise the target number of widgets to be produced, resulting in an uncomfortably fast pace of work. Not all behavior deviations will be enforced, only those violations that have some significant effect on the group meeting its goals (see Table 16-3). Norms are powerful forces not only din affecting the behavior of group members, but also in determining the degree of cohesiveness and conformity of the group.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Table 16-3 Why Norms Are Enforced

Four Conditions Under Which Group Norms Are Most Likely To Be Enforced Example

If norms facilitate group survival

Group members do not disclose certain project details so that their work cannot be replicated by another group.

If norms simplify or make predictable what behavior is expected of group members

Employees are expected to be present at the office during the same hours each day so that clients always know where to find team members.

If norms help the group to avoid embarrassing interpersonal problems

Members do not discuss politics at work so that members with strongly held beliefs do not create conflict or ostracize other members.

If norms express the central values of the group and clarify what is distinctive about the group’s identity

Long white coats are worn by physicians so that patients know which care provider is their doctor and to symbolize a high level of training and expertise.

“The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms,” by D. C. Feldman, 1984. The Academy of Management Review, 9, pp. 47–53.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

▶ Cohesiveness The degree of cohesiveness (e.g., camaraderie) of a group is determined by various factors, which may include members’ dependence and physical location/proximity. The more significant factors tend to be (1) the size of the group, (2) experience of success by the group, (3) group status, and (4) outside threats to the group.

Size of the Group Researchers have determined that the size of the group has a direct impact on the cohesiveness of a group. When there are too many members, it becomes too difficult for members to interact. Luft (1984, p. 23) concluded that “cohesion tends to be weaker and morale tends to be lower in large groups than in comparable smaller ones.” What is the acceptable group size? Kameda, Stasson, David, Parks, and Zimmerman (1992) suggest that the optimum group size appears to be five members. Five-member groups are small enough for meaningful interaction yet large enough to generate an adequate number of ideas (Tubbs, 2001). Small groups may also avoid the problem of social loafing.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Social Loafing Diffusion of responsibility refers to the phenomenon by which an individual feels less responsible for a task when they are part of a group. For example, people are more likely to call for an ambulance when they see a car wreck if there are no other cars on the road. However, if the car wreck occurs in the middle of a busy highway with lots of other cars around, people are more likely to assume that somebody else in traffic will make the call. Perhaps you ignore the full trashcan, hoping that your roommate will take care of it. A specific consequence of diffusion of responsibility that occurs in working groups is called social loafing.

Social loafing refers to the decreased effort of individual members in a group when the size of the group increases (Tubbs, 2001). Ringelmann (1913) identified this social phenomenon when he noticed that as more and more people were added to a group pulling on a rope, the total force exerted by the group rose but the average force exerted by each group member declined. The reason is that some members’ performance became mediocre because they assumed that other members would pick up the slack. Karau and Williams (1993) found that social loafing occurs across work populations and tasks. However, the researchers noted that if the participants’ dominant culture emphasized collectivism versus individualism as described by Hofstede’s four dimensions of national culture (Hofstede, 1984), the degree of social loafing decreased.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Subsequent studies revealed that when an individual’s contribution is identified and the person is held directly accountable for and rewarded for their behavior, social loafing may be eliminated (Kerr, 1983; Kerr & Bruun, 1981; Shepperd, 1993; Szymanski & Harkins, 1987). Beyerlein, Freedman, McGee, and Moran (2003) stress that personal accountability by each group member for their role and responsibilities is required to achieve an effective collaborative team. When accountability is lacking, members will usually act in support of their own self-serving interests. For example, members will sometimes hold back if they believe that other members of their group are not expending equal efforts toward accomplishing the task.

Experience of Success Prior success of a group in reaching its goals has a direct impact on the degree of cohesiveness. No one wants to stay on a losing team. When a group fails to attain its goals, members display a lack of unity by infighting, finger pointing, and, finally, disassociation.

Group Status Cohesiveness is more prominent when admission into the group is more difficult to obtain because of various barriers or high criteria, such as education levels. This perception of status, whether real or not, creates a feeling of being in the “in-group” for the individuals who were able to overcome the barriers for admission into the group—for example, a physicians’ group.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Outside Threats to the Group The cohesiveness of a group will increase if its members perceive that an external force may prevent the group from reaching its goals. Members of the group will unite to display a unified front to the opposing force. In addition, cohesive groups will unite against nonconforming members who threaten the esprit de corps of the group. Therefore, cohesive groups exert pressure on members of the group to conform.

Managers should assist their subordinates’ development into cohesive work groups because research has shown that cohesive units demonstrate a higher level of productivity than less cohesive groups do. However, managers need to be aware that group norms may mediate the relationship between cohesiveness and performance. On the one hand, if norms support performance-related activities, then cohesiveness is likely to improve performance. On the other hand, if norms support limited output or engagement in irrelevant tasks, cohesiveness may undermine performance (Berkowitz, 1954).

In conclusion, group cohesiveness is a product of social identification. According to Hogg and Abrams (1990), the more positive a member feels about their group, the more motivated the person is to promote in-group solidarity, cooperation, and support. In turn, the more cohesive a group is, the more likely it is that its members will interact socially and influence one another (Turner, 1987). Because of these interactions, we find that more cohesive groups have a tendency to eventually pressure their members toward a higher degree of

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

conformity, and a high degree of conformity can lower the performance level of the group.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

▶ Conformity Strong group norms and high degrees of group cohesiveness can hamper the performance of a group because of conformity pressures. Conformity involves the changing of an individual’s perceptions or behaviors to match the attitudes or behaviors of others. This “normative social influence” occurs when we conform to what we believe to be the norms of the group in order to be accepted by its members.

One of the earliest studies in the conformity area was Sherif’s (1936) experiment that involved the autokinetic effect. Sherif pointed a light in a dark space that, although stationary, appeared to move. Subjects were asked, both as individuals and as members of a group, to estimate the amount of movement they observed. When in groups, the subjects changed their original estimates to more closely fit the answers of the other members. This experiment demonstrated the individual’s urge to conform.

Asch (1952) also conducted conformity studies. In Asch’s experiments, eight people were seated around a table. Seven of them were actually the experimenters or confederates. However, the eighth person, the subject, was unaware of this situation. The group was shown two cards; each card contained different lengths of vertical lines (i.e., no two lines matched in length on either card). The participants were asked to say which of the lines matched the length of another. One after another, the participants announced their decisions. The confederates had been told to give an incorrect

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

response. The eighth subject sat in the next to last seat so that all but one of the other participants had given an obviously incorrect answer before the subject gave their answer. Even though the correct answer was obvious (i.e., no two lines matched in length on either card), Asch found that one-third of the subjects conformed to the majority, one-third never conformed, and the remaining one-third gave conforming responses at least once. This experiment was designed to create pressure on subjects to conform to others, which in fact they did.

Although Asch’s experiment has been criticized for being unrealistic (i.e., in the real world, individuals would be making decisions on subjects more complex and more important than the length of a line), it did confirm that “humans have the tendency to conform to the goals and ideas of a small group and tend to be unwilling to go against the group even if they know the group is wrong” (Asch, 1960).

Not all people conform. There is evidence that those who do not conform tend to have a healthy level of self- esteem and to have mature social relationships as well as being fairly flexible and open-minded in their thinking. For example, Crutchfield (1955) and Tuddenham (1958) found that there is a correlation between high intelligence and other personality traits and low conformity. Another important aspect of conformity is that it may lead to “groupthink.”

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

▶ Groupthink Strong conformity pressures reflect members’ attempts to maintain harmony within the group. However, conformity may hamper a group’s performance by decreasing innovation and increasing faulty decision making. Janis (1982) referred to this situation as “groupthink.” Groupthink refers to conditions under which efforts to maintain group harmony undermine critical thought and lead to poor decisions (Janis, 1982; Janis & Mann, 1977). Janis, as cited by Tubbs (2001, p. 236), identified eight symptoms of groupthink:

Type I: Overestimation of the group—its power and morality 1. An illusion of invulnerability, shared by most or all

of the members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks.

2. An unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness 1. Collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount

warnings or other information that might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions.

2. Stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purposes.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1. Self-censorship of deviation from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member’s inclination to minimize to themselves the importance of their doubts and counterarguments.

2. A shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent).

3. Direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members.

4. The emergence of self-appointed mindguards— members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter its shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of its decisions.

Was groupthink the downfall of HealthSouth? (See Exhibit 16-3.) Many former senior managers of HealthSouth, a nationwide provider of rehabilitative services headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, were indicted and in some cases found guilty of fraudulently and systemically inflating the company’s earnings and assets by approximately $4 billion during the 1990s.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Exhibit 16-3 Five HealthSouth Officers Charged with Conspiracy to Commit Wire and Securities Fraud

Count 1 of the Information alleges that a conspiracy existed from in or about 1994 until the present between AYERS, EDWARDS, MORGAN, AND VALENTINE and with Owens, Smith, Harris, and others to devise a scheme to inflate artificially HealthSouth’s publicly reported earnings and the value of its assets, and to falsify reports of HealthSouth’s financial condition. It was part of the conspiracy that Owens, Smith, Harris, and others would provide the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) with monthly and quarterly preliminary reports showing HealthSouth’s true and actual financial results. After reviewing these reports, Owens, Smith, Harris, and others would direct that HealthSouth’s accounting staff find ways to ensure that HealthSouth’s “earnings per share” number met or exceeded Wall Street analyst expectations. After Owens, Smith, Harris, and others issued instructions as to the desired earnings per share number, HealthSouth’s accounting staff would meet to discuss ways to inflate artificially HealthSouth’s earnings to meet the CEO’s desired earnings numbers.

These meetings were known as “family” meetings, and attendees were known as the “family.” At the meetings, they would discuss ways by which members of the accounting staff would falsify

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

HealthSouth’s books to fill the “gap” or “hole” and meet the desired earnings. The fraudulent postings used to fill the “hole” were referred to as the “dirt.” Owens, Smith, Harris, and others would and did direct one or more of the defendants, also members of the accounting staff, to make false entries in HealthSouth’s books and records for the purpose of artificially inflating HealthSouth’s revenue and earnings. Owens, Smith, Harris, and others would direct one or more of the defendants to make corresponding false entries in HealthSouth’s books and records for the purpose of artificially inflating the value of its assets, including, but not limited to, false entries made to (a) Property, Plant and Equipment (“PP&E”) accounts; (b) cash accounts; (c) inventory accounts; and (d) intangible asset [goodwill]. When events required that financial records and reports related to units of HealthSouth were called for by auditors, purchasers, and others, Owens, Smith, Harris, and others would direct one or more of the defendants to generate records and reports that would black out the false entries. Owens, Smith, and one or more of the defendants would, for the purpose of deceiving auditors, manufacture false documents for the purpose of supporting false record entries. One or more of the defendants would and did change codes on accounts to deceive auditors.

Reproduced from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Press Release dated

April 3, 2003.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Managers must be careful because group members sometimes desire to maintain their close team relationships—or, in the HealthSouth case, “the family relationship”—at all costs. When group members operate in a groupthink mode, it may affect their decision making. For example, consider a health care provider who has proposed a new medical procedure for joint replacements. Some team members are initially resistant because of high training demands, even though the new procedure would establish best practices. To preserve harmony in the group, other staff members go along with the resisting members. In this case, the team has succumbed to group thinking instead of critical thinking.

Many researchers studied the culture of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) after the Challenger disaster and found evidence of this type of groupthink. Engineers did not voice their concerns and criticism because of the strong team spirit and camaraderie at NASA. In other words, it is when groups display a high degree of cohesiveness that it is especially important to be on guard against groupthink.

Suggested safeguards against groupthink include (1) soliciting outside expert opinions during the decision- making process, (2) appointing a devil’s advocate to challenge majority views, (3) hypothesizing alternative scenarios of a rival’s intention, and (4) reconsidering decisions after a waiting period. Many researchers have questioned the effectiveness of these safeguards. For example, Bennis (1976) argues that a devil’s advocate

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

will be ignored if the group perceives the member as only role-playing.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

▶ Conclusion Many factors influence our behavior. Group dynamics is a complex subject that attempts to provide us with some understanding of how individuals interact with one another and how those interactions become visible in our resulting behavior. Burton and Dimbleby (1996) developed a model, using interpersonal communication as the foundation, to help us understand the complexity of group dynamics (see Figure 16-3).

Figure 16-3 The Interface of Me and Them

Reproduced from Burton, G., & Dimbleby, R. (1996). Between ourselves: An

introduction to interpersonal communications (2nd ed.). London: Edward

Arnold.

The figure is titled “The Interface of Me and Them.” Since group dynamics is the attempt to understand how people interact with and influence others within groups, the title is most appropriate. When examining the model, you will notice that the bottom half is concerned

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

with “me” and the top half represents “them.” The process begins with an individual’s needs or motivation, which triggers the “whole of self.” The triangle represents the various interactions we have with our groups that are filtered through our self-concept, which, taken together, form our personal roles. We then communicate our role and receive feedback from both ourselves (did I play the role correctly?) and others (did they confirm my behavior was correct?) to restart the process of redefining who we are as an individual (personal role). Although the model may appear somewhat complex, it only starts to explain the complexity of human behavior.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Discussion Questions

  1. Define the study of group dynamics and discuss why it is important to today’s managers.

  2. Describe the four characteristics that define a group and provide examples of nongroups and groups.

  3. Explain what is meant by “group interaction.”   4. Discuss how group interactions can be measured.   5. Discuss why people join groups and what sustains

their membership.   6. Explain the importance of the various roles that

members assume in groups.   7. Discuss how group norms are formed and

sustained within groups.   8. Explain how group cohesiveness is developed and

sustained.   9. Discuss why conformity can inhibit a group’s

performance. 10. Explain what behavior is displayed by a group that

is engaging in groupthink.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Exercise 16-1 Form small groups of four to five individuals and discuss the following statement:

Often employees do not act or react as individuals but as members of groups.

When discussing this statement, the group members should share experiences of working in groups. Can you recall an instance in which you gave in because of the pressure to conform? Have you experienced a nonconformist in one of your groups? How did you or other members of your group react to “deviant” behavior in your group?

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Exercise 16-2 Form small groups of four to five individuals. Using the worksheet “Be the Best We Can Be Team Norms,” discuss how the answers to the questions can assist the group with developing team norms so that each member understands their expected behaviors.

Be the Best We Can Be Team Norms

1. When I am upset with someone I will: 2. One way I can avoid making premature

assumptions is: 3. When a member of the group is not contributing,

we will: 4. One thing I think we could do to resolve

differences among us as a team could be: 5. One thing important to me about how we

communicate (e-mail, text, F2F, how quickly should people respond, etc.) is:

�. When someone comes to complain to me about so-and-so on our team I/we will:

7. One way I’d like to be recognized or appreciated is:

�. One thing our group could do when we forget our Team Commitments and want to get back on track could be:

Reprinted with permission from Nance Guilmartin: author, The Power of

Pause: How to Be More Effective in a Demanding, 24/7 World.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Exercise 16-3 Analyze the level of group cohesiveness in one of the groups to which you belong.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

References Asch, S. (1952). Effects of group pressure on the modification

and distortion of judgments. Reprinted in Swanson, G. E., Newcomb, T. M., & Hartley, E. L. (Eds.). (1965). Readings in social psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Asch, S. (1960). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bales, R. F. (1953). The equilibrium problem in small groups. In T. Parsons, R. F. Bales, & E. A. Shils (Eds.), Working papers in the theory of action (pp. 111–167). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bales, R. F. (1999). Social interaction systems: Theory and measurement. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. London, England: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.

Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team roles at work. London, UK: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.

Belbin, R. M. (2004). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail (2nd ed.). London, England: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.

Benne, K., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–49.

Bennis, W. (1976). The unconscious conspiracy: Why leaders can’t lead. New York, NY: AMACOM.

Berkowitz, L. (1954). Group standards, cohesiveness, and productivity. Human Relations, 7, 509–519.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Beyerlein, M. M., Freedman, S., McGee, C., & Moran, L. (2003). Beyond teams: Building the collaborative organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Blackburn, R., & Rosen, B. (1993). Total quality and human resources management: Lessons learned from Baldrige Award-winning companies. Academy of Management Executive, 7(3), 49–66.

Burton, G., & Dimbleby, R. (1996). Between ourselves: An introduction to interpersonal communications (2nd ed.). London, England: Edward Arnold.

Crandall, C. S. (1988). Social contagion of binge eating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 588–598.

Crutchfield, R. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10, 191–198.

Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47–53.

Haynes, A. B., Weiser, T. G., Berry, W. R., Lipsitz, S. R., Breizat, A. H. S., Dellinger, E. P., … Merry, A. F. (2009). A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(5), 491– 499.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hogg, M., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem and social identity. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 28–47). New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of foreign policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. New York, NY: Free Press.

Kameda, T., Stasson, M. F., David, J. H., Parks, C., & Zimmerman, S. (1992). Social dilemmas, subgroups, and motivational loss in task-oriented groups: In search of an “optimal” team size. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 47–56.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta- analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A paradigm for social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819–828.

Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 224–231.

Luft, J. (1984). Group processes: An introduction to group dynamics (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: National Press.

Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animes: Travail de l’homme [Research on animate sources of power: The work of man]. Annales de l’Institut National Agronomique, 2e serie-tome XIL 1–40.

Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81.

Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York, NY: Octagon Books.

Sprott, W. J. H. (1958). Human groups. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and self- evaluation with a social standard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 891–987.

Taplin, S. H., Foster, M. K., & Shortell, S. M. (2013). Organizational leadership for building effective health care teams. Annuals of Family Practice, 11(3), 279–281.

Tubbs, S. L. (2001). A systems approach to small group interaction. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Tuddenham, R. (1958). The influences of a distorted norm upon individual judgments. Journal of Psychology, 46, 227–241.

Turner, J. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

Turner, M. E. (2000). Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

U.S. Department of Justice, Northern District of Alabama. (2003, April 3). Five HealthSouth officers charged with conspiracy to commit wire & securities fraud [Press Release]. Available from www.usdoj.gov/usao/aln

Youngreen, R., & Moore, C. D. (2008). The effects of status violations on hierarchy and influence in groups. Small Group Research, 38(5), 569–587.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

© Valex/Shutterstock

CHAPTER 17

Groups

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After completing this chapter, the student should be able to understand the:

Importance of a group’s size. Three broad categories of groups. Difference between informal and formal groups. Different types of task groups. Five stages of group development. Seven stages of group decision making. Different methods for group decision making.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

▶ Overview In this chapter, we discuss the composition, structure, formation, and decision-making processes of groups. The optimum size for a group is five members. However, we will find groups with fewer than five members and groups with more. When a group has fewer than five members, problems may arise relating to an inability to make decisions and lower levels of creativity (Tubbs, 2001). If the group becomes too large, subgroups may form, distracting from the main group’s purpose, and a majority of the group’s time may end up being used for functioning purposes (e.g., organizing members, assigning roles) rather than the required task (Tubbs, 2001). All these situations can cause frustration among the members and stifle the group’s ability to reach its goal.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

▶ Types of Groups Groups can be categorized into three broad groups: primary, secondary, and reference. In the workplace, groups operate under an informal or formal structure.

Primary Groups Primary groups include one’s family and close friends and/or peers. Social psychologists tend to see primary groups as those that (1) involve regular contact between members of the group, whether through direct face-to- face interaction, technology, or other means, and (2) are fairly small (20 members or less) (Blackler & Shimmin, 1984). In addition, primary groups (1) involve cooperation, (2) share common goals, (3) are familiar with all members, and (4) have an understanding of the role(s) of each member.

Primary groups have a powerful influence on a member’s self-concept as well as the development of the individual’s perceptions and attitudes. During an individual’s childhood and adolescent years, the family unit has a strong impact on the development of the individual’s personality and future behaviors, both socially and in the workplace.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Secondary Groups Secondary groups comprise the larger circle of people we associate with. During the adult years, associations with work and professional groups will influence an individual’s attitudes and perceptions through various interactions with these different groups. For example, Jane Kerry, RN, is a member of a family group, a member of a group of close-knit friends that meet for dinner once a month (friends Jane has known from high school), the president of her local bridge club, a member of Glen Haven Hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit nursing staff, and a member of the hospital’s quality improvement committee. Jane is also a member of larger groups: She is a member of the hospital’s pediatric department, a member of the hospital’s nursing staff, and a member of the community in which the hospital is situated. In addition, she is a member of the American Nurses Association. Some of these group memberships may be short term, and others may be long term. No matter what the time frame, each group will influence Jane’s behavior.

1114237 - Jones & Bartlett Learning ©

Reference Groups “Reference group” is a term coined by Herbert Hyman (1942, 1968) to designate a group that an individual uses as a point of reference in determining their judgments, preferences, and behaviors. A person uses a reference group as an anchor point for evaluating their own beliefs and attitudes. Even though an individual may or may not be a member and may or may not aspire to be a member of a reference group, the group can have great influence on the person’s values, opinions, attitudes, and behavior patterns. For example, one might say, “I’m not like those people” or “I am like those people.” A reference group’s influence on an individual may be positive or negative. An individual may pattern their beliefs and behavior to be congruent with or opposite to those of the group. Churches, labor unions, and political parties are examples of reference groups that can be positive or negative for specific individuals. The size of a reference group can range from a single individual (e.g., a movie star, athlete, or supermodel) to a large aggregate of persons, such as a political party or a religious institution.