Introduction to Groups
Lessons for Today
1.
Groups are valuable.
a.
2.
Groups often do better than the individual in them. They allow people to handle
projects that are too large or complex for a single individual.
The success of a group consists of three components:
a.
b.
c.
Getting the work done
Supporting the needs of individual members
Keeping the group as an unit functioning.
These outcomes are only loosely related.
3.
Groups are often afflicted by "process losses", which prevent them from doing
as well as they are capable of doing:
a.
b.
c.
4.
Problems in coordination
Problems in motivation
i.
Social loafing & ways to control it
ii.
Problems of diversity (I'm not sure how to control this)
Problems in resolving conflict
Success also depends upon communication outside the group
a.
b.
c.
Client – know what they want & convince them that what you have is it
Subject matter experts
Users
Groups
1.
2.
3.
4.
Groups = social aggregates that involve mutual awareness
& potential mutual interaction. For our purposes, generally have
a common goal of producing something
a. Standing groups defined by identity and stable pattern of
relationships
b. Acting group defined by pattern of interaction
Kinds of groups
a. Ad hoc groups – Lab groups with no history or organizational
context
b. Teams - Groups with organizational embedding, internal
differentiation & common goal
Groups have pervasive, persistent & powerful effects on
human behavior
Large number of stylized facts about how groups & teams operate
a. Social psychology – Focus on ad hoc, contextless, laboratory
groups
b. Organizational behavior – Focus on embedded, production
teams
Groups are valuable
•
Way to pool resources to tackle problems that are too
large or complex for an individual to solve
• Effort - e.g., construction gang, large software development projects
• Expertise - e.g., teaching this course, executive team
• Interests - e.g., school board, Congress
• Perspective/Point of view - e.g., human subjects review board
•
In many task groups do better than the individuals
comprising them
• E.g., Problem solving
• Groups are more likely to solve problems than average member
• E.g., Learning
• Students often learn better thru cooperative learning teams in schools
than through individual instruction
•
Advantage depends upon the task & whether the group
is interacting or a statistical aggregation
Romantic relations in a high school
Bearman, P. S., Moody, J., & Stovel, K. (2004). Chains of affection: The structure of adolescent
romantic and sexual networks1. American Journal of Sociology, 110(1), 44-91.
Largest
connected
component in the
high school
dating network:
How many
males (blue?)
Peter S. Bearman, James Moody, and
Katherine Stovel, Chains of affection: The
structure of adolescent romantic and sexual
networks, American Journal of Sociology 110,
44-91 (2004)
Eureka Tasks:Truth Revealed Wins
Group problem-solving example:
Suicide as cause of death
was the 10th leading cause of death in the US in 2007, with 9.2
suicides per 100,000 in the population
• What is the suicide rate of different demographic groups in the US (per
100,000 in the group) to one decimal point?
• Suicide
• White males
• White females
• Black males
• Black females
Base rate
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
Self
______
______
______
______
Discuss
______
______
______
______
• Which
Actual
______
______
______
______
demographic group has the lowest suicide rate? Estimate it in number
per 100,000 of that demographic group.
• Procedure
• First make your estimate individually
• Form 3-person groups:
• Reach a consensus answer with group in 3 minutes
Group problem-solving example:
Suicide as cause of death
•
•
Suicide was the 10th leading cause of death in the US in 2007, with 9.2
suicides per 100,000 in the population
What is the suicide rate of different demographic groups in the US (per
100,000 in the group) to one decimal point?
Base rate
Self
Discuss
Actual
White males
9.2
12.9
11.7
20.2
White females
9.2
9.5
9.3
5.2
Black males
9.2
9.1
8.5
8.8
Black females
9.2
7.6
7.2
1.7
Group slightly more accurate than individual (.38, t = 1.14, p =.27)
Why Do Groups Perform Better than the
People Who Comprise Them?
•
For the counting task?
•
For the visual pun task?
•
For the suicide task?
Why Do Groups Perform Better than the People Who
Comprise Them?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Law of large numbers & central limit theorem: Average of many
independent judgments drawn from a single distribution is closer to the true
value that any single estimate
Aggregation of resources: Diversity of knowledge, skills, abilities, and
approaches enhances creativity, problem solving, and decision quality
Synergy-Contribution by one member sparks contributions by others
Creative conflict: Task-based conflict brings out different ideas and
solutions
Efficiency: Groups offer opportunities for division of labor
Commitment fosters decision understanding and acceptance
Learning: Participation builds members’ skills
Condorcet jury theorem
•
•
•
•
Need to make a decision
with 2 choices
One choice is correct
Each person has a
probability p of voting
correctly
Probability of group making
correct decision as N
increases:
– If p > .5: approaches 100%
– If p < .5: approaches 0%
Marquis de Condorcet - 1785
Essai sur l'application de l'analyse á la
probabilité des décisions rendues á la
pluralité des voix
When does it not work?
Failures of the crowds
•
•
•
Ignorance (i.e., when probability of individual
knowledge is low)
Non-independence via communication
Systematic bias
– Prejudice and marketing
– Anchoring and adjusting
– Framing effects: losses loom larger than gains
Comparison of two crew cases
•
Which was more successful
– What are the criteria for success
Brief case: Rowing in an 8
Discussion
•
How was this crew successful?
•
How did they achieve their success?
•
What is the relationship between their successful
racing performance & their espirit de corpd
Army Crew case: Causes
•
Why is varsity losing to JV team
– Common approach to dealing with the cases
•
What are the root causes of the problem
– What are the important concepts?
– What are the pathways?
– What is the evidence?
Some summary points
•
•
•
Illustrates process losses
Failures in team cohesion, team-level trust &
attributing team performance to individuals may have
caused team to fail
Components of cohesion
– Identification with the team-as-a-whole
– Liking of individual teammates
Fixes
•
Given these causes, what are the options for fixing the
problem?
–
–
–
–
To prevent the problem
To fix a team in crisis
Why will your solution work?
What are the risks?
Root causes  Fixes
•
Lack of trust among
teammates
– Trust in particular rowers
– Trust in team as a whole
– Don’t trust that others will
return to rhythm after a bad
stoke
•
Insufficient identification with
the overall team
•
 rower try to compensate
 further reductions in
speed
•
Greater team-level training to
improve coordination
Team-level bonding
experiences
•
Functionalist Perspective
•
Normative approach that seeks to identify the inputs
to groups and the group processes cause groups to
be more or less successful.
– Groups are goal oriented
– Both group behavior & performance can be evaluated
– One can control group interactions to make them more
appropriate for achieving group goals
– Other factors (both internal & external) influence group
performance through group interaction
•
“Normative” means that there are better or worse
ways to organize groups to achieve the goals for
which they were formed.
Criteria for Group Success
What were the criteria for success in the rowing crews?
1.
The success of a group consists of three components:
a. Production: Getting the work done & meeting
needs of stakeholders
b. Member support: Supporting the needs of
individual members
c. Group maintenance: Keeping the group as an
functioning unit and developing it with time and
experience.
2.
These components can be in tension
Traditional Input-Process-Outcome Model
of Group Effectiveness
Input
Process
Output
Forsyth, D. (2010). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Pub Co.
Group cohesion & performance
•
Meta-analyses of 66 studies show moderate, reliable
correlations btw cohesion & group performance
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A
Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989-1004.
Interplay btw cohesion & performance
•
•
•
Effects are bi-directional
Performance  cohesion is stronger than cohesion
performance
Cohesion/performance relationship is stronger for
more interdependent task
Group Are Generally Successful If:
Input
Process
Output
Clear engaging
direction
Challenging
Consequential
Clear
Team composition
Individually talented
Right mix
Small as possible
Resources
Coaching
Apply adequate
knowledge & skill
Production
Exert sufficient
effort
Member support
Use appropriate
work processes
Group maintenance
I-P-O Model of Group Think (Janis,
1972)
Group think: Style of group decision-making in which
the desire for harmony or conformity results in an
irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.
Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a
consensus decision without critical evaluation of
alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing
dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from
outside influences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
I-P-O Model of Groupthink
Input
•
•
•
•
•
•
High group
cohesiveness
Strong leader
Group isolation
External threat
Time pressure
Process
• Internal conformity
pressures
• Illusion of unanimity
• Perceptions of group
superiority
• Incomplete search &
decision analysis
Output
Decision
quality
Group
cohesion
Process losses
Coordination
•
Coordination costs of
– Scheduling
– Developing consensus
– Doing the work
•
•
•
Production blocking: members can
not think of new ideas while
listening to someone else
Common knowledge effect:
discussions focus on shared
information
Unequal participation:
participation  expertise
Motivational
•
•
•
•
•
Social loafing: members expend less
effort
Conformity pressures: members
feel pressured to agree with the
group rather than share dissenting
information
Conflict: interpersonal conflict is
disruptive
In-group vs. Out-group bias: Mere
group membership leads to in-group
favoritism.
Escalation of commitment: groups
persist in following a course of
action despite evidence against it
Alex Osborne’s
Rules for Brainstorming (1953)
•
•
•
No criticism
Defer criticism.
Encourage the wild
– Wild ideas may trigger more practical suggestions
from others
– It is easier to tone done crazy ideas than to be creative
•
The more the better
– The more ideas, the greater likelihood of one winner
– It is easier to eliminate than to generate
•
Build off of others
– Combinations and improvements are welcome
– How can you improve what others offered?
– Can you get creativity from combinations?
Osborne, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of
creative problem solving. Charles Scribener’s Sons, New York.
Process Loss in Brainstorming





120
In real, interacting groups
(versus nominal ones)
Fewer ideas
Fewer good ideas
Lower average quality
Lower feasibility
How you attempt to rectify
this depends on why this
occurs
100
Number of ideas

80
60
40
20
0
Real group
Nominal group
Number of ”good” ideas produced by interacting
and nominal 4-person groups discussing
how to improve relationships among
Germans & guest workers (Diehl & Stoebe, 1987)
Possible explanations
Explanation
Solution
Possible explanations
•
•
•
Explanation
Conformity pressures
Social loafing
Production blocking
•
•
•
Solution
Anonymity
Surveillance systems
Simultaneous input
Production Blocking is the main problem
 Brainstorm at home & use group meeting to consolidate
Other techniques to enhance brainstorming
•Take a break
• Brainstorm within categories
• Division of labor
Sample Coordination Problem:
Lack of Information Sharing
•
•
•
Team members have some shared & unshared positive information
about a candidate
Who should they choose?
Who will they choose?
Shared information
•
•
•
•
More likely to be mentioned
Will be discussed more
More likely to be remembered
More influential in decision-making
 Not taking advantage of one of a group’s primary
asset
How to fix the problem
•
•
•
•
•
•
Helps
Explicitly ask for unshared
info
Consider alternative one at
a time
Rank, not choose
Suspend initial judgments
Build group trust
Approach task as “problem
to be solved” not “judgment”
•
•
•
•
Doesn’t help
Increase discussion
Separate review & decision
stages
Increase team size
Poll before discussion
Coordination reflected in
participation rates
•
•
Uneven
distribution in
groups
Unevenness
increases with
group size
Processes Loss:
Max Ringelmann’s Discovery (1882-7)
•
•
•
•
•
Agricultural engineer at French National
Institute o Agronomy 1870-1900
Data gathered 1882-87, published 190713
3 series of experiments using 1- 8
volunteers
5 second pull on 5 meter rope attached to
dynamo-meter
Mean force pulled by individuals = 85.3
kg
Social Loafing:
Working in a group decreases effort
•
•
Social loafing occurs in
both interacting and
nominal groups
Across many
performance outcomes
–
–
–
–
Physical
Intellectual
Quantity
Quality
The Data:
When is Social Loafing Reduced?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Individual's output is visible
Task is attractive
Expect others to perform poorly
Own contribution is unique
Task is simple
Task has specific, challenging goals
Group is attractive
Among women and those from collectivist
cultures
What causes social loafing?
Ways to reduce social loafing
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assign fewer people to work on tasks
(“understaffing”)
Assign individual responsibilities
Make individual performance visible
Define clear, stretch goals
Make the tasks intrinsically interesting
Make the group enjoyable to work in