Constraints - Personal
1
Constraints – Personal Entry
Pamela White
McDaniel College
Constraints - Personal
2
An important part of the constraints competency is gaining an understanding of
how group dynamics function. I included this entry as part of my portfolio because as
human resources professionals it is important for us to use organizational development
and team building skills to ensure that teams created within our organizations function
properly for the benefit of the employee and the company. This becomes even more
important in small organizations where we must wear many hats. I acquired personal
growth in this area through the group projects completed for these graduate classes. One
assignment in particular demonstrated to me the significance of the size of the group and
the phenomenon of social loafing. Robbins (2005) describes social loafing as “the
tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when
working individually” (p. 253).
Previous groups I had participated in consisted of three to four members. My
group in this class consisted of just myself and one other member. I had worked with this
group member in the past and although it was not a positive experience, she did
contribute to the project. Therefore, I wasn’t concerned about working with her. The
work was evenly divided so it seemed her lack of effort would have been apparent,
incentivizing her to contribute equally. Unfortunately, when the group consisted of just
the two of us, in my opinion, it seemed to have the effect of giving her the freedom to
completely abdicate her responsibility for contributing to the project since it was her
word against mine if her lack of effort was questioned.
The advantage of having a group of any greater size than two became apparent to
me through the course of this particular group project. Although through my research in
this area, the conventional wisdom appears to be that the larger the size of the group, the
Constraints - Personal
3
greater the reduction of effort, that was not my personal experience. Additionally, as I
will discuss, I believe there were other factors that contributed to the issues in my
individual situation and I believe the researchers are correct. A group of two is quite
different than the groups used in the research.
Much research has been done in this area. The most well known studies were
conducted by Max Ringelmann. He studied the issue of social loafing as it related to the
amount of effort expended by individual members of a group of people. He used an
experiment involving members pulling on a rope. The Ringelmann effect is the
phenomenon in which individual performance decreases as the number of people in the
group increases. Social loafing occurs when a group puts forth less than 100% effort due
to losses in motivation—there is a diffusion of responsibility, and individuals feel that
others within the group will pick up the slack (Weinberg & Gould, 2007, p. 174). My
personal situation did not support the research in this area. There was little diffusion of
responsibility, yet my group member felt comfortable not putting for the effort. Many
studies conducted since Ringelmann have supported this idea that people do not
contribute at the same level when working in a group as they would individually. Latane
et al. (1979) theorized this was due to the fact that members assume others will not pull
their weight, therefore, why should they work any harder than the other group members.
Researchers have duplicated one explanation for this phenomenon in their
research studies. It is widely thought that social loafing is caused by members feeling
that whatever the quality of the output, it will not be individually attributed to them. My
situation goes against the research because our project was a comparison of retail banks
and credit unions. Her contribution or lack thereof, would have been apparent and,
Constraints - Personal
4
therefore, readily attributed to her. Kunishima and Welte (2004) conducted a study in
which they tested the effect of a threat of punishment on social loafing. The researchers
theorized that a threat of punishment for poor performance would have a significant
effect on the individual member output. It did not. The group under threat of punishment
did perform better, but not significantly. Social loafing was not eliminated or even
reduced to the extent predicted.
In my particular personal experience as a part of this academic group, it is my
opinion that a negative consequence for the non-performing group member would have
been a motivating factor and would have eliminated the social loafing I experienced.
Although I concede that this is not usually a good method of rectifying the situation, I
believe it would have been effective in this situation specifically because we were a
group of two. In my situation, I requested that I complete my own project and the other
member complete her own project as well using whatever material we had contributed
individually to the group project. I was unfortunately told by the instructor that he was
concerned that the other member would not have a project if he imposed that
consequence. That was exactly the point. The member would not have had a project
because she had not contributed and would have been forced to if this was the
consequence. I think my situation is different because it took place in an academic
setting. Non-performing group members in other settings may not be as influenced by
negative consequences and it may be more difficult to assign individual responsibility to
members in larger groups in order to enforce those negative consequences.
Through my examination of research in this area, my conclusion is that there is an
important component of the phenomenon which is not considered as it is not easily
Constraints - Personal
5
measured. The individual member’s character plays a great part. This component may
determine the degree to which an individual would be inclined to socially loaf. A person
who feels accountable to others and has a character that would not allow them to feel
good about relying on other persons efforts would not be as likely to socially loaf. I
believe I am still such a person despite my experience in this situation. However, it has
changed my perception of fairness, particularly in the academic world. An individual’s
perception of fairness plays a large role in how much effort is expended in a group
environment. I certainly would be more cautious in the future if I have any degree of
control over the makeup of my group.
The academic environment is dissimilar to a work situation. In the work
environment, an employee is more likely to be rewarded or punished for this type of
behavior through monetary means or through opportunities for promotion. It is not as
easy to determine who the contributors truly are in an academic situation nor is there
enough time and experiences between the students and instructor for there to be sufficient
opportunity for appropriate rewards and punishments to result. In their paper that studied
online groups and social loafing, Piezon and Donaldson (2005) concluded there were
ways to mitigate social loafing and free riding. These included such strategies as:
 Clarify the roles and responsibilities
 Establish an “open door” policy
 Utilize combination grades
 Require high levels of accountability
 Alternate group roles (i.e., leader, recorder, editor)
 Balance group members’ skills and knowledge
Constraints - Personal
6
 Avoid even numbered groups and limit small groups to five
members
 Do not punish individuals for reporting team member’s poor
performance
I feel that the last point was an important factor in my individual situation. I was
punished for reporting the fact that I was performing the work without my group
member’s help. She contributed only slightly more after I reported the problem as
before. In fact, she became hostile and the instructor forcing us to work together made
for an uncomfortable situation. Since the professor in essence sided with her, her point of
view that she could contribute virtually nothing and benefit from someone else’s work
was validated. This would have been a particularly negative situation for me if it had
been a work situation and we were required to communicate with each other and
collaborate on additional projects.
In human resources, we must act as internal consultants relative to these issues
especially if our company is not large enough to have employees specializing in
organizational development. We may be involved in the development of the team, the
ongoing functioning of it, or assisting the group in resolving issues. When I encounter
this as part of my responsibilities in the future, I will first focus in a couple of
fundamental areas. Much can be accomplished by expending sufficient effort
constructing the team properly and ensuring members have a clear understanding of the
goals. Susan Heathfield (n.d.) describes twelve components of building successful work
teams. These include clear expectations, context, commitment, competence, charter,
control, collaboration, communication, creative innovation, consequences, coordination,
Constraints - Personal
7
and cultural change. Three of these seem particularly important to focus on in the
formation of the group. I’ll need to ask if there are clear expectations around the purpose
of the group and does everyone understand what is expected. I’ll also need to evaluate
the competence of the members. Are they the appropriate people to accomplish the goals
based on the individual knowledge and skills of each person in relation to the goals?
Additionally, are members committed to the process? Ongoing the other areas will be
critically important as well, but the proper focus on these key areas will provide an
excellent foundation.
Clearly, there needs to be individual accountability in the group or the goals will
not be accomplished. I believe consequences are even more important in a work situation
because if they are not known and expected, individuals may not accomplish the goal and
the overall project will be put in jeopardy. Additionally, if individual members are not
held accountable, valuable employees may become disgruntled and leave the
organization. In a work situation, however, it is more likely that there will be less
tendency for people to socially loaf. People generally do not want to be ostracized by coworkers. If for no other reason, employees will probably contribute because they are
concerned for the stability of continued employment. The most important thing I could
do relative to accountability would be to hold the team as a whole as well as individual
team members responsible for results. Although some workers feel accountability is a
way to assign blame when results are not achieved, it has been shown to be a positive
tool. In fact, Marsha Willard and Darcy Hitchcock (1998) found that “research indicates
that holding people accountable for their results has very positive effects: greater
accuracy of work, better response to role obligations, more vigilant problem solving,
Constraints - Personal
8
better decision making, more cooperation with co-workers, and higher team satisfaction”
(para. 6). Essentially, accountability used properly benefits both the employee and the
organization as a whole.
Overall, I believe this personal experience has deepened my understanding of how
people function as part of a workgroup. This experience will help me to form more
efficient and effective workgroups, assist them through the process of accomplishing the
goals and has given me an increased ability to work through any issues that arise.
As human resources professionals, it is important to understand the functioning of
group dynamics both for groups in which we are personally involved and those
employees form. It is essential additionally to be aware of the social loafing phenomenon
and the tendency for people to put forth less effort in larger groups. We must be mindful
of the phenomenon so that we may attempt to control the makeup and size of the group if
possible. Should conflicts arise, we can negotiate with team members to communicate
with each other to come to mutual understandings that maintain harmony in the group.
Lastly, we can use these same negotiation and communication skills to resolve the
problems so that group goals can be met and the organization can be successful.
Constraints - Personal
9
References
Heathfield, S. (n.d.). Twelve tips for team building: How to build successful work
teams. Retrieved 4/18/10 from
http://humanresources.about.com/od/involvementteams/a/twelve_tip_team.htm?p
=1
Kunishima, J., & Welte, K., (2004, March). Effects of Punishment Threats on Social
Loafing. Journal of young investigators, Issue 3. Retrieved 1/8/10 from
http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume10/issue3/articles/kunishima.html
Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S., (nd). Many hands make light work. The causes
and consequences of social loafing [Electronic version], JPSP, 37, 822-832.
Piezon, S., & Donaldson, R. (2005). Online groups and social loafing: Understanding
student-group interactions. Online journal of distance learning administration.
Retrieved 6/17/09 from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter84/piezon84.htm
Robbins, S. (2005). Organizational behavior (pp. 253). Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall
Weinberg, R & Gould, D. (2007). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (pp.
174). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
Williard M. & Hitchcock, D. (1998). Accountability a sticky subject for teams.
Retrieved from http://www.teambuilding.com/article_team_accountability.htm