Social loafing in work

teams

STUDENT NUMBER: 43530214 NAME: OLIVER ARMSTRONG

Word Count: 1627

Introduction

This essay aims to discuss the issues and causes of social loafing and provides two

potential interventions organisations could consider to reduce the effects of social

loafing. Social loafing is defined as the tendency of individuals to expend less effort

when working in a group (Ulke & Bilgic, 2011) and is a major issue impacting

organisations, particularly the capacity to maximise performance and efficiency.

Organisations are at risk if they do not address the issues and causes of social

loafing, having the potential to be confronted with a workforce where motivation

losses can occur (Price, Harrison, & Gavin, 2006), which can lead to loss of profits,

efficiency and productivity. This essay will explore both work and personality factors

that may cause social loafing. Work factors can include, group size, accountability

and group cohesiveness (Smrt & Karau, 2011), and personality factors include

winning orientation and preference for group work (Stark, Shaw, & Duffy, 2007). This

essay will suggest two potential interventions organisations could use to reduce the

effects of social loafing.

Problems with Social Loafing

Social loafing is an important issue as it can have a negative impact on

organisations. It is one of the main contributors of loss of motivation and as a result,

loss of productivity and quality of the work (Price et al., 2006). This is due to other

team members needing to exert more effort to make up for the loafers lack of

contribution. Social loafing also has some significant indirect costs for an

organisation in the form of loss of productivity and motivation. Liden, Wayne,

Jaworski, and Bennett (2004) found, productivity loss in some cases is attributed to

social loafing. Due to this loss in productivity, indirect costs to the organisation

increases as a result of still paying the loafing employee as well as the extra time

taken to cover for the problem employee (Rolf van, Tissington, & Hertel, 2009).

Further, studies have shown that other forms of social loafing have arisen that affect

areas outside of group work such as cyberloafing. Cyberloafing is when employees

use work time on the Internet for non-work related activities (Kidwell, 2010). The

concern for organisations is that cyberloafing and social loafing are inter-related and

stem from each other. An employee is likely to take part in both social and

cyberloafing as a result of the other (Kidwell, 2010). This leads to a further

productivity and motivation loss as it can occur outside of team work environment.

Therefore, social loafing is a significant issue for organisations due to the negative

impacts associated with loss of motivation, productivity and the costs associated with

this.

There are two main factors that contribute to social loafing: work-related and

personality-related factors (Stark et al., 2007). Work-related factors, also known as

situational moderators in the context of social loafing, include group size,

accountability, task meaningfulness and group cohesiveness (Smrt & Karau, 2011).

It is the negative changes in these situational moderators that tend to cause an

increase in social loafing. Recent research undertaken by Meyer, Schermuly, &

Kauffeld (2015) identified that participants reduced their effort if their partners did not

try as hard. Therefore, suggesting that perceived social loafing leads to more loafing.

This may be because employees feel as if they shouldn’t be required to do work

when others around them are doing the same. This can cause a motivation loss of

other employees, resulting in a further decline in other group members as their

workload increases, creating a snowball effect (van Dick, Stellmacher, Wagner,

Lemmer, & Tissington, 2009). Identifiability (or accountability) is another major cause

of work-related social loafing (Ulke & Bilgic, 2011). A study found that when group

members are rewarded equally for their product, some believed that they aren’t able

to receive their fair share of praise when they did the most work, causing them to

resort to social loafing (Price, 1987; Williams, Harkins & Latane, 1981 as cited by

Ulke & Bilgic, 2011).

A person’s individual personality-related traits can also impact on social loafing. A

study by Smrt and Karau (2011) attained that individuals with strong commitment to

hard work are especially likely to work hard on collective tasks. It is these particular

personality traits that influence social loafing. Employees who show the opposite are

more likely to loaf as a result, both in and out of teamwork. These types of

employees are often more susceptible to various work-related factors of social

loafing (Price et al., 2006; Smrt & Karau, 2011). This may be as a result of

personality traits causing an inherent disposition towards social loafing, meaning

employees are more likely to also loaf using the various work-related factors.

Social loafing in certain situations may not necessarily result in negative outcomes.

Schippers (2014) found that having levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness

were positively related to social loafing tendencies, with performance staying on par.

However, these are relatively niche case, as it requires particular employees who

have high levels of these positive traits to influence social loafing tendencies

positively. Despite this, it can still allow for the other employees to produce work of a

higher standard, as they must work harder for a good outcome for the team. This

extra drive can lead to the overall standard of work being higher if little or no social

loafing were to occur (Schippers, 2014).

Interventions

The evidence base suggests that work-related factors are the major contributors to

social loafing, as personality traits are intrinsic by nature and that they can occur

independent of personality factors (Liden et al., 2004; Price et al., 2006; Rolf van et

al., 2009). Therefore, interventions targeted at work-related factors may be the best

option. One potential intervention is to increase the identifiability of employees in

work teams. This means that an organisation should increase employee's

accountability for the work they have done. Price et al. (2006) discussed the effect of

increasing identifiability on social loafing. In the lab tests they found that there was

no detectable main effect of identifiability. This was however attributed to the fact

that test subjects anticipated more lenient ratings from co-workers (Price et al.,

2006). It was recommended that using a tangible reward could result in more

legitimate ratings, such as a bonus pay increase. For example, someone who knows

they will get paid less as a result of loafing, is more likely to put the effort into the

task (Price et al., 2006). This would also increase the efficiency alongside quality of

work produced, due to all employees being held accountable for their contributions.

However, this method does have its drawbacks. In some cases, identifiability can

overwhelm how the task is undertaken (George, 1992, as cited by Price et al., 2006).

For example, an employee could try go above and beyond what work needs to be

done, and as a result produce a lower quality piece of work in an effort to make it

look as if they have contributed more. Further, it could also lead to a bias in

allocating identifiability between the team.

Another potential intervention for social loafing is to increase task preparation though

structural design, conflict management, and goal setting. Kidwell (2010) found that

by having a common and agreed upon purpose for the team from the beginning, led

to a decrease in overall social loafing. Conducting an initial strength and weakness

evaluation allows for employees to be assigned to the right sections, decreasing the

chance of social loafing occurring. Further, it was found that having a good conflict

management system in place reduces social loafing, as social loafers specifically

reported more conflict occurring in teams (Kidwell, 2010). Therefore, it is important

for the proper goals, conflict resolution and task design to be put in place prior to the

commencement of the task in order to lower the chance of social loafing taking

place. Doing so does however have some negative consequences. Whilst this can

give a more holistic view on the situation, employees are still capable of loafing as

there are still no consequences for doing so. This forces others in the team to pick

up the slack as a result of the loafers not being held accountable (Price et al., 2006).

Based on the evidence and two interventions examined, the most appropriate

approaches to reduce the effects of social loafing would be to increase the

identifiability and accountability of employees. Kidwell (2010) went on to state that for

taks preparedness to be successful, further measures, such as increasing

identifiability at the end of the project, are required. This suggest that accountability

and identifiability are better overall interventions for dealing with social loafing. Used

in conjunction with other potential interventions could improve the impact on social

loafing more. Further, addressing identifiability may indirectly influence other factors

causing social loafing such as group cohesion and perceived fairness within a team.

From an organisational perspective, identifiability is an appropriate place to target as

there are many ways in which it can be targeted. If the organisation already has

monetary bonuses in place for group effort, they may want to focus on intrinsic

motivators, such as employee of the group or month, in order to further reduce social

loafing in teams through identifiability and accountability.

Conclusion

Social loafing is therefore a significant issue for organisations due to the loss of

profits, efficiency and productivity as a result of loafing. There are various factors that

contribute to social loafing, including personality and work related factors. The

evidence suggests that work related factors have increased impact on of social

loafing when compared to personality due to the intrinsic nature of personality traits.

Therefore, interventions targeting work related issues were recommended. The two

interventions suggested were identifiability and increased task preparation. Both

interventions could see an overall reduction in social loafing, however, using

identifiability as the primary intervention would see the greatest decrease in social

loafing.

Bibliography

Kidwell, R. E. 2010. Loafing in the 21st century: Enhanced opportunities—and remedies—for withholding job effort in the new workplace. Business Horizons, 53(6): 543-552. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. 2004. Social loafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management, 30(2): 285-304. Meyer, B., Schermuly, C. C., & Kauffeld, S. 2015. That’s not my place: The interacting effects of faultlines, subgroup size, and social competence on social loafing behaviour in work groups. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology: 1-18. Price, K. H., Harrison, D. A., & Gavin, J. H. 2006. Withholding inputs in team contexts: Member composition, interaction processes, evaluation structure, and social loafing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1375-1384. Rolf van, D., Tissington, P. A., & Hertel, G. 2009. Do many hands make light work? European Business Review, 21(3): 233-245. Schippers, M. C. 2014. Social Loafing Tendencies and Team Performance: The Compensating Effect of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(1): 62-81. Smrt, D. L. & Karau, S. J. 2011. Protestant Work Ethic Moderates Social Loafing. Group Dynamics-Theory Research and Practice, 15(3): 267-274. Stark, E. M., Shaw, J. D., & Duffy, M. K. 2007. Preference for group work, winning orientation, and social loafing behavior in group. Group & Organization Management, 32(6): 699-723. Ulke, H. E. & Bilgic, R. 2011. Investigating the Role of the Big Five on the Social Loafing of Information Technology Workers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(3): 301-312. van Dick, R., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Lemmer, G., & Tissington, P. A. 2009. Group membership salience and task performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(7-8): 609-626.