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, also 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
High school
dating network:
How many
males (blue?)
Data drawn from 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
Causes 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
______
______
______
______
Actual
______
______
______
______
• Which
______
______
______
______
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
McGrath’s Task Typology
Cooperative
Generate
Creative
Planning
Intellective
Performance/psychomotor
Execute
Choose
Decision making
Competitive tasks
Cognitive conflict
Negotiate
Mixed motive
Competitive
Conceptual
Behavioral
What Processes Help Groups Succeed?
What Processes Help Groups Succeed?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
Brief case: Rowing in an 8
Discussion
•
Was this crew successful?
•
How did they achieve their success?
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 (not individuals) to the
team may have caused team to fail
Components of cohesion
– Identification with the team-as-a-whole
– Liking of individual teammates
•
Interplay between team cohesion & performance
– Effects are bi-directional
– Performance  cohesion is stronger than cohesion
performance
– Cohesion/performance relationship is stronger for more
interdependent task
Group cohesion & performance
•
Meta-analyses of 66 studies show 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.
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
•
Defining Group Success
1.
The success of a group consists of three components:
a.
b.
c.
Production: Getting the work done & meeting needs of stakeholders
Member support: Supporting the needs of individual members
Group maintenance: Keeping the group as an functioning unit and
developing it with time and experience.
2.
These components are in tension
3.
 Have clear goals & evaluate group performance against them.
Traditional Input-Process-Outcome Model
of Group Effectiveness
Forsyth, D. (2010). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Pub Co.
Group I-P-O models
Inputs
Processes
Personnel
Tasks
Output
Production
Interaction patterns
Communication
Conformity
Roles
Strategy
...
Member
needs
Group
maintenance
Tools
Environment
Design
Features
Task - autonomy
Task - interdependence
Task - complexity
Task - novelty
Task - type
Management
Production
Project/Intellective
Group - Expertise
Group - Size
Group - Diversity
Group - History
Group structure
Hierarchical
Self-managed
Org context - rewards
Org context - distance
Resources - Time
Resources - Budget
Resources - Comm tools
Intervening
Processes
Group outcomes
Internal processes
Communication frequency
Communication formality
Conflict - task
Conflict - relationship
Motivation
Groups ‘traits’
Norms
Shared mental model
Cohesion
Group affect
External processes
External communication
Social network position
Performance
Productivity
Customer satisfaction
Creativity
Financial returns
Member support
Satisfaction
Learning
Trust
Group maintenance
Retention
Turnover
Resources
Survival
Thompson’s (2011) model
•
Note Thompson in Making the Team (2011) has very
similar constructs, organized somewhat differently
Group Are Generally Successful If:
Clear engaging
direction
Challenging
Consequential
Clear
Team composition
Talented
Right mix
Small as possible
Resources
Apply adequate
knowledge & skill
Production
Exert sufficient
effort
Member support
Use appropriate
work
processes
Group maintenance
Coaching
Inputs
Process effectiveness
Outcomes
What group problems have you had?
•
Situations where you thought a group you were part
of didn’t live up to expectations?
Thompson (2011) Team Performance
Analysis
Note. Her categories
confound
preconditions for
performance (e.g.,
clear goals) with
performance criteria
(e.g., team members
enjoying working
together & learning
from each other).
Problems in Groups I’ve Supervised in
Industry & Academia
•
Every year 1 or 2 groups struggle with problems of group dynamics
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Conflict over goals
Conflict over assignments
Conflict over standards
Task conflict spill over into personal conflict
Uneven contributions
Difficulty dealing with differences between members
Difficulties in coordination
Disappointment with what they have learned
Groups don’t deliver what the client wanted
Not Being Listened To
“As you are (or should) be aware, I have had difficulties dealing with the
group dynamics existing in our project group. I’ve tried several strategies to be
able to cope with them: exposing the problem to you, ignoring these
difficulties and trying to make my point anyway,. …
I’ve also tried to make my voice be heard and to speak up more as you told me
to do, but even this has not worked. … I’m disappointed with myself for not
being more assertive and authoritative and for not knowing how to deal with
this situation better; I am disappointed with you for not being willing to listen
and incorporate my ideas into the group and for not considering me as a real
member of the group.
As a result, I feel that our work so far is not representative of our qualities and
skills. We have been able to produce very little as a group and this is even
more upsetting that the personal feelings I have endured with this group.”
Social Loafing
“George was a problem in our group, never contributed to any of our group
meetings at all, he would just get his laptop out as soon as he sat down and then
just surfed the web on it. We continually asked him to participate in the work,
close his laptop, etc. but all he did was read website forums on [his hobby] and
edit Wikipedia pages about it.
At best he didn't contribute to the group and ignored us. At worst he would join
the conversation underway and say something that required us to to break what
we were talking about to go back and discuss with him about something that
the group had already decided about 30 minutes ago on.
We purposefully did not let him present to the class because we, as a group,
have no idea what he even really knows about our project and we didn't think
that he would be able to speak about it well.
He contributed nothing to the project.
Personality Clashes
A European member from a culture with a very direct way of speaking had a
major role and others were upset and/or intimidated by his direct manner. A lot
of fighting broke out. In this case, a consultant worked with the team and they
learned how to work well enough together to pull together a nice project and the
client was pleased.
Generally Dysfunctional
Degenerated due to excessive lewd joking that some team members were upset
by (it was an all male team), due to members failing to have any appreciation of
one another's points of views, and due to widely varying work ethics among the
five members.
This team also had a fairly obnoxious sponsor group who disagreed amongst
themselves and gave the team conflicting recommendations. The sponsor was
also very negative about everything the team did. So, ill-will all around pulled
team members apart.
Not Listening To the Client
http://www.centgraf.net/metrovizl
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
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