Function of Groups
Affiliation (e.g., sororities, fraternities, clubs)
Survival
Vital for task completion (organizations, work groups, charities)
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
Group Processes
Social Loafing
Do people try less hard when working in groups? Does social
loafing occur?
Ringleman Effect?
The average performance (input) of individuals decreases as
group size increases
Ringelmann Findings
Individuals
Individual
Efforts
(Sum)
Group Effort
Group/Individ
ual Ratio
1-7
764
480
.63
8-14
516
432
.84
15-21
533.7
435.4
.82
22-28
575.5
471.2
.82
15-28
1109.2
858.9
.78
Why?
a) Less effort
b) Coordination issues
Precursor to the Latane et al study (Ingram et al, 1974)
Yelling (& clapping) study by Latane, Williams, & Harkins
Procedure?
Alone
In actual groups
In pseudo-groups
Less individual effort when
in groups, even in “groups”
when no one was present
(but people thought they
were)
Potential productivity
Actual groups
Pseudo-groups
10
Reduced effort
(Social loafing)
8
Sound
pressure
per person
6
Coordination loss
4
2
1
Group size
2
6
Social Loafing on a More Complex Task
Social Loafing on a More Complex Task (cont.)
Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics
Procedure?
Survey: List of 92 adjectives rated on a 5-point scale from (1) “Not Characteristic
to (5) “Characteristic”
Ratings on:
Men in General,
Women in General, and
Successful Manager in General
Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics
Results – Ratings by males?
Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.)
Results – Rating by females?
Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.)
Results?
High
agreement
in ratings
Less
agreement
on ratings
of women
by males
and females
Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.)
Results regarding specific trait differences?
Males higher ratings on “Dominant-Aggressive” characteristics –
e.g., competitive, need for power, aggressive, assertive (especially by
male raters)
Females higher ratings on “Social Humanitarian” characteristics - e.g., sympathetic, desire for friendship, helpful (especially by
female raters)
Big Picture Implications?
Less representation of females in business (e.g., CEOs), politics (e.g., U.S. Senate),
academic administration (e.g., universities)
Females in Leadership Positions - Percent of females in US Senate?
Barbara Mikilski
Mary Landrieu
Dianne Feinstein
Barbara Boxer
Parry Murray
20
Susan Collins
Maria Cantwell
Debbie Stabenow
Claire McCaskill
Kay Hagan
Lisa Murkowski
Amy Klobuchar
Jeanne Shaheen
Kirsten
Gillibrand
Kelly Ayotte
Tammy Bladwin
Deb Fischer
Heidi Heitkamp
Mazie Hirono
Elizabeth Warren
Female CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies?
23 (Link)
Company
GENERAL MOTORS
HEWLETT-PACKARD
IBM
PEPSICO
A.D.M
LOCKHEED MARTIN
CEO
Mary Barra
2014
Company
AVON
2011 = 12; 2012 = 18
CEO
Sherilyn McCoy
2012
Meg Whitman
2011
SEMPRA ENERGY
Debra Reed
2011
Virginia Rometty
2012
GUARDIAN LIFE
Deanna Mulligan
2011
Indra Nooyi
2006
CAMPBELL SOUP
Denise Morrison
2011
Patricia Woertz
2006
MYLAN
Heather Bresch
2012
Marillyn Hewson
2013
INGREDION
Ilene Gordon
2009
DUPONT
Ellen Kullman
2009
CH2M HILL
Jacqueline Hinman 2014
MONDELEZ
Irene Rosenfeld
2006
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC
GENERAL DYNAMICS
Phebe Nokakovic
2013
GANNETT
TJX
Carol Meyrowitz
2007
FRONTIER COMM.
XEROX
DUKE ENERGY
Ursula Burns 2009
Lynn Good 2013
YAHOO
Kathleen Mazzarella 2012
Gracia Martore
2011
Maggie Wilderotter 2006
Marissa Meyer
2012
Gender and Leadership: Recent Findings
Females as CEOs --increase in stock price
Survey of over 60,000 direct
reports
But, it depends on
industry
No gender preference for one’s
own boss
Price goes up higher if
female CEO is head of
female-dominated
business, otherwise small
decrease in stock price
(Cooke & Glass, 2011)
“Ideal” boss:
54% -- No Preference
13% -- Female Preference
33% -- Male Preference
• Small but significant preference for opposite-sex
bosses
• Increased preference for stereotypical female leader
characteristics (sensitive, supportive) vs. direct,
forceful. Study by Elesser & Lever (2011)
Zajonic’s Theory of Social Facilitation
Well-learned
(dominant)
response
Poorly learned
or novel
(non-dominant)
response
Social Facilitation
Performance enhanced
Arousal caused
by presence of
others
Social Interference
Performance hindered
Charting the Course of Groupthink
Irving Janis depicted groupthink as a kind of social disease, complete
with antecedents and symptoms, that increased the chance of making a
bad decision. (Based on Janis, 1982.)
Symptoms
Antecedents
• High cohesiveness
• Isolation
• Directive leader
• Homogeneous
members
Stressful situations
• Overestimation of the group
(invulnerability)
• Close-mindedness
• Rationalization
• Increased pressures toward
uniformity
• “Mindguards” and pressure on
dissenters
• Self-censorship
• Illusion of unanimity
Consequences
Incomplete
survey of
alternatives
Poor information
search
Failure to
examine risks of
preferred choice
High
probability of a
bad decision
Other Group Decision-Making Phenomena
Collective Entrapment --- The more effort used to make a decision, the greater
likelihood of sticking to that decision (even if it’s been shown to be incorrect)
Common Knowledge Effect --- Information held by most group members
exerts a stronger impact on final decisions
~ Social Identity Theory ~
[In-Group Bias]
They tendency to link one’s self-concept and self esteem with the status and/or
behavior of groups
Also, people tend to reward members of ingroups and disfavor those in outgroups
(e.g., Minimal Group Paradigm) --Basking in Reflected Glory --Favorite Football Team wins --- “We;” More likely to wear team t-shirt
Favorite Football Team loses --- “They”
In and Out-Groups Bias
• Liking, spend time with leader
• Challenging, visible jobs
• Better memory for good behavior
In-group
characteristics
• Treated warmly
• Performance evaluations
• Allocation of rewards
• Less desirable jobs
• Less time spent with supervisor
• Treated formally
• Lower performance evaluations
• Less rewards
Out-group
characteristics
Are Groups Good or Bad?
Gustav Le Bon (1895) stated that leaders can manipulate citizens by simplifying
ideas, substituting affirmation and exaggeration for proof, and by repeating
points over and again. (From: Forsyth, 2010) --- Concept of “deindividuation”
LeBon and Tarde --- Mass hysteria