Chapter
Nine
Foundations of
Group Behavior
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Learning Objectives









Differentiate between formal and informal groups.
Compare two models of group development.
Explain how role requirements change in different
situations.
Describe how norms exert influence on an individual’s
behavior.
Explain what determines status.
Define social loafing and its effect on group performance.
Identify the benefits and disadvantages of cohesive
groups.
List the strengths and weaknesses of group decisionmaking.
Contrast the effectiveness of interacting, brainstorming,
nominal, and electronic meeting groups.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
A Model of Group Formation and
Development
Types of
Groups
Formal
1. Command
2. Task
3. Team
Informal
1. Interest
2. Friendship
Reasons for
Group
Formation
Stages of
Group
Development
- Security need
satisfaction
- Social need
satisfaction
- Esteem need
satisfaction
- Proximity &
attraction
- Group goals
- Economic
reasons
1. Forming
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Some Group
Characteristics
End
Results
- Performance
2. Storming
- Composition
- Status
hierarchy
3. Norming
- Roles
- Development
4. Performing
- Norms
5. Adjourning
- Leadership
- Cohesiveness
- Satisfaction
Defining and Classifying Groups
Group(s)
Two or more individuals interacting and
interdependent, who have come together
to achieve particular objectives.
Formal Group
Informal Group
A designated work
group defined by the
organization’s structure.
A group that is neither
formally structured nor
organizationally determined;
appears in response to the
need for social contact.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Defining and Classifying Groups (cont’d)
Command Group
Task Group
A group composed of
the individuals who
report directly to a
given manager.
Those working together
to complete a job or task.
Interest Group
Friendship Group
Those working together
to attain a specific
objective with which
each is concerned.
Those brought together
because they share one
or more common
characteristics.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Why People Join Groups
• Security
• Status
• Self-esteem
• Affiliation
• Power
• Goal Achievement
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Why People Join Groups
 Security – by joining a group, individuals can reduce the
insecurity of “standing alone”.
 Status – inclusion in a group that is viewed as important
provides recognition & status for its members.
 Self-esteem – groups can provide people with feelings of
self-worth.
 Affiliation – groups can fulfill social needs.
 Power – what cannot be achieved individually often
becomes possible through group action. There is power in
numbers.
 Goal Achievement – when it takes more than one person to
accomplish a particular task – there is a need to pool
talents, knowledge, or power in order to complete a job. In
such cases, management will rely on formal groups.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Why People form Groups
Slide 1 of 2
Need Satisfaction
Proximity &
Attraction
Social Needs
Proximity is the physical
distance between
employees. Attraction is
typically engendered by
similarities in attitudes,
performance or
motivations.
Security Needs
Esteem Needs
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Why People form Groups
Slide 2 of 2
Achievement of
Group Goals
Economic
Benefits
Group goals, if clearly
understood, can be a
reasons why people are
drawn to a group.
In many cases, groups
form because people
believe they can derive
greater economic
benefits from their jobs
if they organize.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
The Five-Stage Model of Group Development
Forming Stage
The first stage in group development, characterized
by much uncertainty.
Storming Stage
The second stage in group development,
characterized by intragroup conflict.
Norming Stage
The third stage in group
development, characterized
by close relationships and
cohesiveness.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
…Group Development (cont’d)
Performing Stage
The fourth stage in group development, when the
group is fully functional.
Adjourning Stage
The final stage in group
development for temporary
groups, characterized by
concern with wrapping up
activities rather than
performance.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
The Five-Stage Model of Group Development
Forming Stage
The first stage in group development, characterized by
much uncertainty about the group’s purpose, structure, &
leadership.
 Members are ”testing the waters” to determine what types
of behavior are acceptable.
 People tend to be polite during this stage and will defer to
the existing authority of a formal or informal leader who
must provide an initial set of rules & structures for
interaction.
 Members experience a form of socialization as they try to
find out what is expected of them & how they will fit into the
team/group.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
The Five-Stage Model of Group Development
Storming Stage
The second stage in group development, characterized by
intragroup conflict.
 Members accept the existence of the group, but there is
resistance to the constraints that the group imposes on
individuality.
 There is a conflict over who will control the group.
 This stage is marked by interpersonal conflict as members
become proactive & compete for various group roles.
 Coalitions may form to influence the team/group`s goals &
means of goal attainment.
 Members try to establish norms of appropriate behavior &
performance standards. This is a tenuous (weak) stage in
the team`s development.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
…Group Development (cont’d)
Norming Stage
The third stage in group development, characterized by
close relationships and cohesiveness.
 There is now a strong sense of group identity.
 During this stage the group develops its first real sense of
cohesion as roles are established & a consensus forms
around group objectives.
 Members develop common expectations & assumptions
about how the team`s goals should be accomplished.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
…Group Development (cont’d)
Performing Stage
The fourth stage in group development, when the group is
fully functional.
 The structure at this point is fully functional & accepted.
 Group energy has moved from getting to know &
understand each other to performing the task at hand.
 Group members have learned to coordinate & resolve
conflicts more efficiently.
 There is a climate of mutual support in which team
members feel comfortable about taking risks, making
errors, or asking for help.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
…Group Development (cont’d)
Adjourning Stage
The final stage in group development for temporary
groups, characterized by concern with wrapping up
activities rather than performance.
 For permanent work groups, performing is the last stage in their
development.
 Temporary groups, task forces & similar groups prepare for
disbandment, in this stage.
 Attention is directed toward wraping up activities.
 In this stage, some members may be basking in the group`s
accomplishments while others may be depressed/sad over the
loss of relationship/friendship.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
The
Five-Stage
Model
of
Group
Development
Stages of Group Development
Forming
Storming
Norming Performing Adjourning
 Uncertaint  Marked by  Marked by  Stage
 Involves
y about
conflict
cooperatio
where the
the
the
n and
group is
terminatio
 Emotionall
purpose,
collaborati
fully
n of group
y intense
structure
on
functional
activities;
stage
and
disbandm
leadership
ent
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Stages of Group Development
E X H I B I T 9–2
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
An Alternative Model: Temporary Groups with
Deadlines
PunctuatedEquilibrium Model
Temporary groups
under time constrained
deadlines go through
transitions between
inertia and activity---at
the half-way point,
they experience an
increase in productivity.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Sequence of actions:
1. Setting group direction
2. First phase of inertia
3. Half-way point transition
4. Major changes
5. Second phase of inertia
6. Accelerated activity
The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model
Temporary groups with deadlines do not seem to
follow the five-stage model.
 Their first meeting sets the group’s direction.
 This first phase of group activity is one of inertia
 A transition takes place at the end of this first
phase, which occurs exactly when the group has
used up half its allotted time
 A transition initiates major changes
 A second phase of inertia follows the transition ,
and
 The group’s last meeting is characterized by
markedly accelerated activity.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model
E X H I B I T 9–3
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Development .... compared
 Punctuated-Equilibrium Model characterizes
groups as exhibiting long periods of inertia
interspersed ( things scattered or placed at intervals) with brief
revolutionary changes triggered primarily by their
members` awarness of time & deadlines.
 If compared with Five-stage group development
model, the group begins by combining the
forming & normring stages, then goes through a
period of low performing, followed by storming,
then a period of high performance, and , finally,
adjourning.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Properties
 Roles
 Norms
 Status
 Size
 Cohesiveness
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Properties - Roles
Role(s)
A set of expected behavior patterns attributed to
someone occupying a given position in a social unit.
Role Identity
Certain attitudes and behaviors
consistent with a role.( promotion to the next
higher rank may invoke certain attitudes &
behaviors)
Role Perception
An individual’s view of how he or she is
supposed to act in a given situation.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Properties - Roles (cont’d)
Role Expectations
How others believe a person should act in a given
situation. (e.g., an Imam selling a concert tickets)
Psychological Contract
An unwritten agreement that sets out what
management expects from the employee and
vice versa.
Role Conflict
A situation in which an individual is confronted
by divergent role expectations.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Implications.........
What happens when role expectations as implied
in the psychological-contract are not met?
 If management is derelict ( negligent in the performance of
one`s duty) in keeping its part of the bargain, we can
expect negative repercussions on employee
performance & satisfaction.
 When employees fail to to live up to expectations,
the result is usually some form of disciplinary
action up to and including firing.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Properties - Norms
Norms
Acceptable standards of behavior within a group
that are shared by the group’s members.
Classes of Norms:
• Performance norms
• Appearance norms
• Social arrangement norms
• Allocation of resources
norms
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Common Class of Norms
 Performance Norms: Work groups typically provide their members
with explicit cues on how hard they should work, how to get the job
done, their level of output, appropriate levels of tardiness, and the like.
These norms are extremely powerful in affecting an individual
employee`s performance.
 Appearance Norms: This includes things like appropriate dress,
loyalty to the work group or organization, when to look busy etc. Some
organizations have formal dress codes.
 Social Arrangement Norms: These norms come from informal
work groups and primarily regulate social interactions within the group.
With whom group members eat lunch, friendships on & off the job,
social games, and the like are influenced by these norms.
 Allocation of Resources Norms: These norms can originate in
the group or in the organization & cover things like pay, assignment of
difficult jobs, and allocation of new tools & equipment.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Properties – Common Classes of Norms
Conformity
Asch Study
Adjusting one’s behavior to align with
the norms of the group. (When an
individual's opinion of objective data differs
significantly from that of others in the
group, he or she is likely to feel extensive
pressure to align his/her opinions to
conform with those of the others)
Reference Groups
Important groups to which individuals belong or hope
to belong and with whose norms individuals are likely
to conform.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Properties - Norms (cont’d)
Deviant Workplace Behavior
Antisocial actions by organizational members
that intentionally violate established norms and
result in negative consequences for the
organization, its members, or both.
Group norms can influence the
presence of deviant behavior.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Typology of Deviant Workplace Behavior
Category
Examples
Production
Leaving early
Intentionally working slowly
Wasting resources
Property
Sabotage
Lying about hours worked
Stealing from the organization
Political
Showing favoritism
Gossiping and spreading rumors
Blaming coworkers
Personal Aggression
Sexual harassment
Verbal abuse
Stealing from coworkers
Source: Adapted from S.L. Robinson, and R.J. Bennett. “A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors:
A Multidimensional Scaling Study,” Academy of Management Journal, April 1995, p. 565.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
E X H I B I T 9–5
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Properties - Status
Status: A socially defined position or rank given to groups
or group members by others.
Power over
Others
Ability to
Contribute
Personal
Characteristics
Norms &
Interaction
Group Member
Status
Other things influencing
or influenced by status
Status Inequity
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
National
Culture
Group Properties - Status
Status:
A socially defined position or rank given to
groups or group members by others.
 Status has some interesting effects on the power
of norms & pressures to conform.
 For example, high status members of groups
often are given more freedom to deviate from
norms than are other group members.
 High-status people also are better able to resist
conformity pressures than their lower-status
peers.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Properties - Size
Social Loafing
The tendency for individuals to expend less effort when
working collectively than when working individually.
Performance
Other conclusions:
• Odd number groups do
better than even.
• Groups of 5 to 7 perform
better overall than larger
or smaller groups.
Group Size
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
What causes Social Loafing effect?
 It may be due to the belief that others in the group are not
carrying their fair share. If you see others as lazy or inept,
you can reestablish equity by reducing your effort.
 Dispersion of responsibility.Because the results of the
group cannot be attributed to any single person, the
relationship between an individual`s input & the group`s
output is clouded. ( free-rider)
 In other words, there will be a reduction in efficiency where
individuals think that their contribution cannot be
measured.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Properties - Cohesiveness
Cohesiveness
Degree to which group members are attracted to
each other and are motivated to stay in the group.
Increasing group cohesiveness:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Make the group smaller.
Encourage agreement with group goals.
Increase time members spend together.
Increase group status and admission difficultly.
Stimulate competition with other groups.
Give rewards to the group, not individuals.
Physically isolate the group.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Relationship Between Group Cohesiveness,
Performance Norms, and Productivity
E X H I B I T 9-7
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
S. Adams, Build a Better Life by Stealing Office Supplies (Kansas City MO: Andrews &
McMeal, 1991), p. 31. Dilbert reprinted with permission of United Features Syndicate, Inc.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
E X H I B I T 9–8
Group Decision Making
Decision-making
– Large groups facilitate the pooling of
information about complex tasks.
– Smaller groups are better suited to coordinating
and facilitating the implementation of complex
tasks.
– Simple, routine standardized tasks reduce the
requirement that group processes be effective
in order for the group to perform well.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Decision Making (cont’d)
 Strengths
– More complete
information
– Increased diversity
of views
– Higher quality of
decisions (more
accuracy)
– Increased
acceptance of
solutions
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
 Weaknesses
– More time
consuming (slower)
– Increased pressure
to conform
– Domination by one
or a few members
– Ambiguous
responsibility
Group Decision Making (cont’d)
Groupthink
Phenomenon in which the norm for consensus
overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative course
of action.
Groupshift
A change in decision risk between the group’s
decision and the individual decision that member
within the group would make; can be either toward
conservatism or greater risk.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Decision Making (cont’d)
Groupthink
Phenomenon in which the norm for consensus overrides the
realistic appraisal of alternative course of action. It describes
situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group
from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views. It is a
disease that attacks many groups & can hinder their performance.
The tendency of highly cohesive groups to value
consensus at the price of decision quality.( McShane 2ed)
The best known example is NASA`s space shuttle challenger
explosion in 1986. Key decision makers at NASA experienced many
groupthink symptoms. Although engineers raised concerns about the
O-ring seals before the launch, but they were criticized for doing so
because the decision makers were under intense pressure to launch
due to the previous delays & promises of the program's success.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Symptoms Of The Groupthink Phenomenon
 Group members rationalize any resistance to the
assumptions they have made.( No matter how strongly
the evidence may contradict their basic assumptions, members
behave so as to reinforce those assumptions continually.)
 Members apply direct pressures on those who
express doubts about shared views or who
question the alternative favored by the majority.
 Members who have doubts or differing points of
view keep silent about misgivings and even
minimizing to themselves the importance of their
doubts.
 There appears to be an illusion of unanimity. (if someone
does not speak, it is assumed that he/she is in full accord.)
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Decision Making (cont’d)…..
Group shift
A change in decision risk between the group’s
decision and the individual decision that member
within the group would make; can be either
toward conservatism or greater risk.
The groupshift can be viewed as actually a special case of
groupthink.
What appears to happen in groups is that the discussion leads to a
significant shift in the positions of members toward a more
extreme position, in the direction in which they were already
leaning before the discussion. So conservative types become
more cautious & the more aggressive types take on more risk. The
group discussion tends to exaggerate the initial position of the
group.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Groupshift.....
 In comparing group decisions with the individual
decisions of members within the group, evidence
suggest that there are differences. In some cases,
the group decisions are more conservative than
the individual decisions. More often, the shift is
towards greater risk.
 The most plausible explanation of the shift
toward risk, is that the group diffuses
responsibility. Group decisions free any single
member from accountability for the group`s final
choice. Greater risk can be taken because even if
the decision fails, no one member can be held
wholly responsible.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Decision-Making Techniques
Interacting Groups
Typical groups, in which the members interact with each
other face-to-face.
Members rely on both verbal & nonverbal interaction to communicate with
each other. Interacting groups often censor (A person who exercises
supervision or judgment over the conduct or morals of others ) themselves &
pressure individual members toward conformity of opinion.
Nominal Group Technique
A group decision-making method in which individual
members meet face-to-face to pool their judgments
in a systematic but independent fashion.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Nominal Group Decision-making Technique
1. Members meet as a group but, before any discussion
takes place, each member independently writes down
his/her ideas on the problem.
2. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to
the group. Each member takes his/her turn, presenting a
single idea until all ideas have been presented & recorded.
No discussion takes place untill all ideas have been
recorded.
3. The group now discusses the ideas for clarity & evaluates
them.
4. Each member silently & independently rank-orders the
ideas. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking
determines the final decision.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Decision-Making Techniques
Brainstorming
An idea-generation process that specifically encourages any
and all alternatives, while withholding any criticism of those
alternatives.
Rules of Brainstorming:
Do not criticize ideas. Provide as many ideas as possible. Say all
ideas that come to mind, no matter how wild. Combine &
improve ideas suggested by others.
Electronic Meeting
A meeting in which members interact on computers, allowing
for anonymity of comments and aggregation of votes.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Evaluating Group Effectiveness
TYPE OF GROUP
Effectiveness Criteria
Interacting
Brainstorming
Nominal
Electronic
Number and quality of ideas
Low
Moderate
High
High
Social pressure
High
Low
Moderate
Low
Money costs
Low
Low
Low
High
Speed
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Task orientation
Low
High
High
High
Potential for interpersonal conflict
High
Low
Moderate
Low
Commitment to solution
High
Not applicable
Moderate
Moderate
Development of
group cohesiveness
High
High
Moderate
Low
E X H I B I T 9–9
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Chapter Check-Up: Groups
True or False: The Punctuated Equilibrium
Model suggests that groups have an equilibrium,
but that equilibrium will be punctuated at the halfway point. But, after the punctuation, the group
will return to the equilibrium it had prior to the
punctuation.
FALSE. The first part is true, but the second
sentence is false. After the punctuation, the group
will have a new equilibrium of increased
productivity.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Chapter Check-Up: Groups
List 2 drawbacks of brainstorming
and 2 plusses of the Nominal Group
Decision Making Technique. Compare
your answers with your neighbor, and
discuss which one you would use for
a group project in this class and why.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Chapter Check-Up: Groups
Lorraine is a non-traditional student (she’s 51
years old) and is working in a group for a class
project. They keep turning to her for the answers
to questions. Which of the following might the
group have that is driving Lorraine’s experience?
Groupthink
Groupshift
Role Conflict
Role Expectations
The group may have role expectations of Lorraine--e.g., because she’s older, that she should be the
wise one and know the answers like a parent should.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
Group Norms & The Hawthorne Studies
 A series of studies undertaken by Elton Mayo at
Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in
Chicago between 1924 and 1932.
 Research Conclusions:
– Worker behavior and sentiments were closely
related.
– Group influences (norms) were significant in
affecting individual behavior.
– Group standards (norms) were highly
effective in establishing individual worker
output.
– Money was less a factor in determining
worker output than were group standards,
sentiments, and security.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.