Dr Lucia Garcia-Lorenzo
How people get organised
Group Dynamics and Leadership
Dr Lucia Garcia Lorenzo
8th November 2011
Who is in a group ?
Lecture Plan
0. What is a group?
1 Group dynamics
1.1. Inter-dependance: Social Facilitation and inhibition
1.2. Socio-cognitive processes: Cohesiveness, socialisation.
1.3. Structure: Norms, roles and status
1.4. Theoretical elaboration of groups
2 Who leads the group ? Leadership theories
2.1. The trait approach
2.2. Contingency approach
2.3. Styles of leadership
2.4. Transactional and transformational leadership
2.5. Post-Heroic Leadership
2.6. Culture, gender and leadership
“…group mental life is essential to the full life of the
individual... the satisfaction of this need has to be
sought through membership of a group.” (Bion,
1961/2010:54)
0. What is a group?
• Interdependence of relationships among members
• Group not static entity but in continuous transformation
• Generates individual, interpersonal and collective process:
socio-cognitive processes
• Develops a structure
0. What is a group?
Johnson and Johnson (1987:8):
“‘A group is:
• two or more individuals in (face-to-face) interaction,
• each aware of her membership in the group,
• each aware of the others who belong to the group, and
• each aware of their positive interdependence as they strive to
achieve mutual goals”
Small, (face-to-face), interactive, task-oriented groups, SP
1.1. Interdependence: Social Facilitation
Effects of the audience
Social Facilitation (Allport, 1920)
People perform better on a task when other people are present (not
competing) – so the mere presence of others can enhance performance
Yet, only in simple tasks: on more complex tasks performance is impaired
by the presence of other people
Drive Theory (Zajonc, 1965): Social facilitation has two dimensions:
• The arousing presence of others
• Effects of task complexity
1.1. Interdependence: Social Facilitation
Zajonc (1965):
Performance of simple and complex tasks alone and in the presence of
others
1.1. Interdependance: Social Facilitation
The effects of the audience
•
Evaluation apprehension model. (Cottrell, 1972)
•
Distraction-conflict theory (Baron, 1986)
•
Self-awareness theory (Wicklund, 1975)
•
Etc.
1.1. Interdependance: Social Facilitation
BUT when tasks need interaction and inter-individual coordination ?
Do groups perform better than individuals?
Steiner (1976): Task taxonomy. Three Determinants of Group Performance.
Task divisible or unitary ?
• E.g., tasks where a division of labour is reasonable (e.g., production
lines) versus those where it is better for everyone to work together (e.g.,
tug of war)
Maximising or optimising task ?
• E.g., where the task job requires people to do as much as possible,
(e.g., tug-of-war), or where a particular quantity is to be achieved (e.g.,
pulling a rope maintaining a specified fixed force)
1.1. Interdependance: Social Facilitation
Steiner (1976)
• How are individual’s efforts related to the total group output ?
• Additive: group output is the sum of individual’s output (e.g., tug of war)
• Compensatory: group output is the average of the individual outputs (e.g.
estimating number of pubs in London)
• Disjunctive: when the best individual performance is chosen
(e.g., a
suggestion as to which restaurant to dine in)
• Conjunctive: the group’s performance is a function of the slowest
member (e.g., an assembly line team)
• Discretionary: no task features or social conventions but group free to
decide on its course of action (e.g. shovelling snow together)
• Group performance worst than individual
• Coordination loss
• Which tasks favour group performance?
1.1. Interdependance: Social Inhibition
Motivation Loss/Social Loafing (Williams, Karau & Bourgeois, 1993):
Less individual effort when working on collective task
•
•
•
Output equity.
Evaluation apprehension
Matching to standard
Social Loafing vs. Social Compensation
(Zaccaro, 1984)
1. Task nature:
Irrelevant or trivial task SL
Important or possible to add to the partial solutions SC
2. Significance of group to its members:
•
Members of ad hoc groups SL
When participants identify with, value their group membership SC
3. Culture
Individualistic cultures SL
Collectivist cultures SC
(Hofstede, 1980)
1.2. Socio-cognitive processes: Cohesiveness
What transforms an aggregation of individuals into a group?
Cohesiveness (esprit de corps, solidarity, team spirit)
•
Field of forces (Festinger, Schachter and Back, 1950)
•
•
•
Attractiveness of the group and its members
Satisfaction of individual goals
Behaviour
•
Membership continuity
•
adherence to group standards
1.2. Socio-cognitive processes: Cohesiveness
FIELD OF FORCES
BEHAVIOUR
Attractiveness
Membership
Continuity
• Of group
• Of group members
Cohesiveness
Mediation of goals:
• Social interaction per se
• Individual goals needing
interdependence
Adherence to
group standards
1.2. Socio-cognitive processes: Cohesiveness
Hogg (1993) personal vs social identity in group aggregation?
Difference between:
•
•
Inter-personal attraction
Social attraction -the 'liking' component of group membership.
Produced by self-categorisation (Turner et al 1987) part of the
group processes that includes ethnocentrism, stereotyping, ingroup solidarity, loyalty-rejection of disloyalty etc.
1.2. Socio-cognitive processes: Socialisation
Groups are dynamic structures that continuously change over time.
How groups develop (Tuckman, 1965, Gersick, 1989):
1. Forming
2. Storming
3. Norming
4. Performing
5. Adjourning
1.2. Socio-cognitive processes: Socialisation
Groups as dynamic structures that continuously change over time.
Role
Social
Process
Strategies
Prospective
member
Full
Member
New
member
Marginal
Member
Ex-member
Re-socialisation
Remembrance
Accommodation
Assimilation
Tradition
Reminiscence
Maintenance
Investigation
Socialisation
Role
negotiation
Recruitment
Reconnaissance
Accommodation
Assimilation
Entry
(Moreland and Levine, 1982)
Acceptance
Divergence
Exit
1.3. Structure: Norms
1.3. Structure: norms
1.3. Structure: norms
Shared beliefs about appropriate behaviour for all group members
•
Descriptive (is) and prescriptive (ought)
•
Explicit (norms enforced by law) and implicit (taken-for-granted)
•
Individually: Provide a frame of reference within which individual
behaviour can be located (Sherif, 1936)
•
Group level: Coordinate the actions of group members to accomplish
group goals.
•
Provide stability and continuity therefore resistant to change.
•
Standard of group behaviour used in social influence processes.
Norms in my group
1.3. Structure: roles
1.3. Structure: Roles
Describe and prescribe behaviour of particular group members
•
Not people but behavioural prescriptions assigned to people
•
Implicit (group of friends), explicit (ICU team)
•
Emerge to facilitate group functioning but inflexibility can be
detrimental.
•
We tend to 'act or assume' roles (Zimbardo and Movahedi, 1975)
simulated prison experiment. Avoid low status roles in groups !
•
Influence who we are: identity and self-concept. (Haslam and Reicher,
2005) . Role identity theory.
1.3. Structure: Status
Not all roles are equal
•
Highest status role is the LEADER
•
Properties of higher status roles
•
Commonly agreed prestige
•
Possibility of creativity and innovation adopted by the group. Able
to break and/or extend norms
•
Status hierarchies can develop and vary over time and situation
despite tendency to institutionalisation.
•
Status hierarchies emerge readily in new groups through intra-group
comparison (Festinger's social categorisation theory, 1954)
Roles/status in my group
1.4. Theoretical elaboration of groups
Interdependence
(Lewin, 1947) :
•
More than just sum of members interactions
•
Co-construction of meaning among group members sharing a
particular experience.
•
Group develops structure with positions and shared aims
•
What happens to a member affects the group
•
Goals achieved through members interaction
•
Satisfaction of affiliation, reality management and instrumental needs
•
Through interaction, a stable pattern of relationships is established
organizing social relations (norms, status and values)
1.4. Theoretical elaboration of groups
Socio-cognitive processes
•
The group perceives itself/is perceived by others as a totality.
•
Group awareness: 'us', 'group mentality' (Bion)
•
Beyond pertence => Group as reference: individual actively engages
in formulating social norms and values that shape thought and
action.
•
Creation of endo-groups (positive relationship) and exogroups
(negative relationship).
•
Minimal Group Paradigm, SIT, Social Categorization
1.4. Theoretical
elaboration of groups
Structure
• Regularities that emerge among group members
• Orders and controls conflicts and tensions
• Influences individuals behaviour and members' social positions
in the group
• Regulates interactions, communication, efficiency, roles, status
and norms.
• Roles: Shape expected behaviours and needed tasks for the
group to function
• Status: Provides information regarding members behaviour and
individuals' position in the group
2.1. Leadership: The trait approach.
The “Great Person” Theory
 Effective leadership is based on individual personality
characteristics – in the past, often thought to be innate (“born
leaders”); more recently such qualities assumed to be acquired
•
Popular theory:
•
•
•
it offers ways to measure the strength of leadership qualities and so to
evaluate candidates for leadership positions
it reflects much of our thinking regarding the world – using person
attributions regarding political and historical events (e.g., locating the causes
of the war in Iraq)
2.1. Leadership: The trait approach.
Common Leader Traits
Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Drive
Leadership motivation
Honesty and integrity
Self-confidence/self-esteem/dominance
Extraversion
Cognitive ability/intelligence/problem solving
Knowledge of the business
Conservatism
2.1. Leadership: The trait approach.
From ‘great person’ to ‘strong men’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xRaUqgWPN0&fe
ature=PlayList&p=D83AA0216AD6F393&playnex
t=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1
Would you like to work for him?
2.1. Leadership: The trait approach.
Little evidence of there being consistent and specific personality traits
possessed by all leaders
Most of the evidence is from ad hoc groups’ ratings of leadership
Not clear the same kinds of people become leaders in real organisations
Or that they will make good leaders
From traits to personality dimensions: (Judge, Bono, Ilies and Gerhardt ; 2002)
Big five personality dimensions
•
Extraversion/ assurgency
•
Agreeableness ,
•
Conscientiousness,
•
Emotional stability,
•
Intellect/ openess to experience.
2.2. Leadership: Leadership styles
Lewin, Lippit & White (1939): Assessed styles of leadership over 7 weeks in an afterschool club for 11 year-old boys
Autocratic:
•
•
More aggression, greater dependence on leader, more control.
Worked hardest, but only when leader present.
Democratic:
•
•
Friendlier atmosphere, group-centred, reasonably task-oriented.
Leader absence made no difference to work rate.
Laissez-faire:
•
•
Leaders faced considerable demands for information. Spent more time
playing than working.
Worked harder when leader absent.
2.3. Leadership: The contingency approaches.
Given relatively few characteristics are common across leaders, focus on context
as a major variable in leadership
Contingency Theory of leadership (Fiedler, 1967):
–
Leadership style develops from a person’s personality, and leads to one of two
styles of leadership:
• Task-focused leadership
• Person-focused leadership
–
Leaders were asked to describe their co-workers on various dimensions, thus
arriving at a description of their “least preferred co-worker” (LPC):
•
•
If LPC described negatively, then leader task focused
If LPC described positively, then leader person focused
2.3. Leadership: The contingency approaches.
The appropriateness of a person-focused or a task-focused leader depends on
the situation:
• leader-group relations (the extent to which the leader has support)
• task structure (well specified or unclear)
• leader’s power (the extent to which they control rewards and punishments)
Over-all:
• Task-focused leadership works better when conditions are very favourable
(positive leader-group relations, clear task, high authority) so group is doing just
fine or very unfavourable (poor leader-group relations, unclear task, low
authority) group needs a directive leader to get things done
• In all other conditions, a person-centred style may get best results
2.3. Leadership: The contingency approaches.
•
•
Fiedler’s view has some empirical support – matching leader
needed to the situation and task also makes intuitive sense
However:
• the view has been controversial (e.g., the assumption that leaders
cannot vary their style of leadership to suit the situation because
style is fixed by personality)
• Static: Fail to capture the 'dance' between leaders and followers
2.4. Leadership: Transactional and transformational leaders
Transactional Leaders (Statt, 2004):
•
•
•
•
Leaders ‘transact’ with followers to get things done
Leadership as a process of exchange
Task-focused: operate a system of contingent rewards
Management by exception: no attempt to change subordinates’ working
methods as long as the performance goals are met
•Transformational Leaders (Burns, 1978):
•
•
•
•
Individualised consideration
Intellectual stimulation
Charismatic/inspirational motivation
The aim is to achieve:
• motivation and performance above and beyond the call of duty
• willingly given
• without apparent expectation of additional economic reward
2.5. Leadership: Post-heroic leadership
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrCeVwwu0Xcfeature
=related
2.5. Leadership: Post-heroic leadership
Bradford and Cohen (1984); (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997):
1990’s/2000’s: associated with transformational leadership but focus on
managers developing their subordinates.
“Manager as developer”:
•
•
•
Shared responsibility with employees
Empowerment of employees: sharing the power around as a “captain of
industry”
Developing constant opportunities to learn – “the learning organisation”
Key factors in development of Post-Heroic Leadership:
•
•
•
Rapidly changing business environment: leadership as ensuring that the
organisation adapts successfully
Discontent with the image of managers (Enron, Northern Rock, etc)
Managers and diversity
What kind of leader would you
prefer to follow? Why?
2.6. Leadership: Culture and leadership
Cultural differences in both the definition of leadership and in specific leadership
behaviours according with broad differences between collectivist (Eastern
Asian) and individualistic (Western) cultures
Leadership:
• Individualistic cultures: Leader is expected to have vision, authority and be a
decision-maker
• Collectivist cultures: Leader is expected to combine being participative, supportive
and nurturing with being decisive
Leadership roles:
• Individualistic cultures: Leader’s role is largely confined to overseeing the
subordinates’ activities whilst in the workplace
• Collectivist cultures: Leader may have a wider role, being concerned with
subordinates’ private lives and well-being outside the workplace
2.6. Leadership: Gender and leadership
Gender differences regarding leadership tendencies, and their assessed
effectiveness
Eagly, Karu,Makhijani (1995): group behaviour in informal groups
•Females: tend to be more democratic, person-focused leaders
•Males : tend to be more autocratic, task-focused leaders
Meta-analysis re. Effectiveness
Overall – no difference in evidence regarding perceived effectiveness
But differences re. of gender-stereotyped appropriateness of role:
Men more effective when role defined in task terms
Women more effective when defined in interpersonal ability terms
•Different effects of organisational level:
Men are more effective in first-level (line-management) positions
Women more effective in 2nd level (middle-management) positions
2.7. Current trends on leadership research
• More holistic view of leadership e.g. including followers, the context, the
levels, dynamics etc
• Examining how the 'process' of leadership actually takes place (e.g. how
the leader and followers process information and how they affect each other, the
group and organization in doing so)
• Deriving alternatives to examine leadership (e.g. mixed methods of research)
• Some further/unresolved questions:
• Are leaders born or made?
• How do followers affect successful leaders?
• Why some charismatic leaders generate and others destroy?
• What is the impact of technology in leadership?
Some further references
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, F.P. (1987) Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bion, W.R. (1961/2010) Experiences in groups. London: Routledge.
Freud, S. (1921/2009) Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. W.W. Norton and Co: London
Allport, F.H. (1920) The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
3 159-182.
Zajonc, R.B. (1965) Social facilitation. Science, 19, 269-279.
Cottrell, N. B. (1972) Social facilitation. In C. McClintock (Ed) Experimental social psychology (185-236) New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Wilson.
Baron, R.S. (1986) Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. In L. Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 20:1-40) New York: Academic Press.
Wicklund, R.A. (1975) Objective self-awareness. In: In L. Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (Vol. 8:233-275) New York: Academic Press.
Steiner, I.D. (1976) Task-performing groups. In J.W. Thibaut and J. T. Spence (Eds.) Contemporary topics in social
psychology. (pp:393-422) NJ: General learning press.
Williams, K.D. Karau, S.J. And Bourgeois, M. (1993): working on collective tasks: Social loafing and social
compensation. In: M.A. Hogg and Abrams, D. (eds.) Group motivation: Social Psychological perspectives (130148) London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Karau, S.J. and Williams, K.D. (1993) Social loafing: A meta-analytical review and theoretical investigation Journal
of personality and social psychology, 65, 681-706.
Zaccaro, S.J. (1984) Social loafing: The role of task attractiveness. Personality and social Psychology bulletin,
10 99-106.
Festinger,L. Schachter, S. and Back, K. (1950) Social pressures in informal groups : a study of
human factors in housing . New York: Harper.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly hills, CA:
Sage.
Hogg, M.A and Vaughan, G.M. (2008) Social Psychology. London: Prentice Hall.
Hogg, M. A. (1993) Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions. European
review of social psychology. 4, 85-111.
Turner, J.C, Hogg, M.A. Oakes, P.J. Reicher, S.D. And Weatherell, M . S. (1987) Rediscovering
the social group: A self- categorisation theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965) developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin, 63,
3840399.
Moreland, RL. And Levine, JM (1982) Socialisation in small groups: Temporal chnages in
individual-group relations, In L. Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 15:137192) New York: Academic Press.
Lewin, K. (1947) Group decision and social change. In T.M. Newcomb and E.L. Harley (Eds.)
Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.W. (1964) Reference groups. New York: Harper and Row.
Tajfel, H. (1978) Social categorization, social identity, and social comparisons . In Tajfel, H. (Ed.)
Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press.
Brown, R. (2000) Group Processes. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.