ADU Slides 2014 Groups Teams
21
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009 Group vs. Team group: a set of interacting individuals who may have come together formally or informally towards achieving a specific agenda (common stated goals) or not group cohesion (cohesiveness): the perceived/felt psycho-cognitive proximity/identification among its members → how much close they feel to each other group cohesion has been found to differ across national cultures team: a rather formal group of individuals characterized by a high degree of cohesion among its members towards achieving a specific agenda
description
the other slide
Transcript of ADU Slides 2014 Groups Teams
Présentation PowerPointGroup vs. Team
group: a set of interacting individuals who may have come together formally or informally towards achieving a specific agenda (common stated goals) or not
group cohesion (cohesiveness): the perceived/felt psycho-cognitive proximity/identification among its members → how much close they feel to each other
group cohesion has been found to differ across national cultures
team: a rather formal group of individuals characterized by a high degree of cohesion among its members towards achieving a specific agenda
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Tuckman’s (1965) Five-Stages of Group Development
forming: getting acquainted - “testing the waters”→ completed when group membership is “realized”
storming: intra-group conflict about group constraints on “individuality” as well as to who will lead the group and how tasks will be distributed → completed when leadership hierarchy and task distribution are solidified (formal structure)
norming: development of consensus about what constitutes “correct” behavior within the group which upgrades group cohesion → completed when the informal structure of the group is solidified
performing: both formal and informal structure of the group are fully functional and promote the focus in performing the task at hand → completed when the group goals are attained
adjourning: preparing to disband while celebrating accomplishment and perhaps starting to feel nostalgic because of the loss of any affective relationships developed during the group’s life which is due shortly → completed when the group is completely dissolved
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties
group size does affect overall group behavior
whether the effect is positive or negative depends on the type of the behavior examined
smaller groups are faster at completing tasks and taking action while individuals perform better in smaller groups (~5 members)
larger groups are better in critical thinking & problem solving (>12 members)
groups with an odd number of members are preferable to those with an even number
the optimal group size seems to be 5-7 members
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties…
social loafing or free-rider effect: the individual tendency to expend less effort when performing collectively than individually
The Rope-Pulling Experiment (Max Ringelman 1920’s)
total group effort is less than the sum of individual members’ efforts
social loafing tends to increase with team size everything else kept constant→ individual performance assessment becomes critical in such cases
the determining factor is group cohesiveness
there is ample evidence of extremely cohesive teams where the total team effort approaches that of the sum of individual members or even super-exceeds that
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties…
roles: a set of specific behavior patterns expected by an individual who occupies a certain group position which defines them
role identity: those attitudes & behavior consistent with a role
role perception: the individual view of his role identity
role expectation: the appropriate attitudes and behavior consistent with a specific role in a given situation that others envisage → e.g. psychological contract: the informal agreement between the individual and the representative of the organization/management that sets what is expected by the individual in exchange for what
role conflict: a situation where an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties…
when the role perception of the employee fulfills his/her supervisor’s role expectation the employee will receive a higher performance evaluation and vice versa
high congruence between the role perception of the employee and his/her supervisor’s role expectation is highly correlated with high employee job satisfaction
role conflict is highly correlated with job-induced tension and job dissatisfaction
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties…
norms: shared informal standards of attitudes & behavior
one of the basic ingredients of the informal structure (culture & climate)
performance norms
appearance norms
Group Properties…
norms interact with cohesiveness
when performance norms are high, a high cohesive group outperforms a less cohesive one
when performance norms are low and cohesiveness high, performance will be low
when both performance norms and cohesiveness are low, performance will fall into the low-to-moderate range
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties…
surface-level (demographic) diversity: readily observable or available (e. g. through CV’s) individual differences in race, ethnicity, national culture, gender, age, physical attributes, language, education & professional experience
Harrison, Price & Bell (1998)
Group Properties…
separation: quantitative polarization/segmentation within the group→ e.g. 40% French & 60% German
variety: qualitative differentiation within the group and how evenly this is distributed among the members of the group → e.g. how many types of undergraduate specializations exist within the group over the total number of members
disparity: the mean (average) value of the individual members’ scores with reference to a given quantitative variable and how individual scores are distributed around the mean→ taking into account the average score of GMA and the standard deviation or variance of the distribution of individual GMA scores
Harrison and Klein (2007)
Group Properties…
surface-level diversity appears to affect more group outcomes early in the life of a group while deep-level later on
the various types of surface-level diversity are considered proxies (approximations) of some type of deep-level diversity
deep-level diversity is by far a better predictor of group outcomes than surface level diversity
diversity in general is relatively more prosperous for highly complex & difficult tasks (exception disparity in abilities → e.g. GMA: Stewart, 2006) & detrimental when speed of decision making is top priority
the relationship of diversity with group performance is highly complex→ multiple intervening situational variables
diversity in general appears to have an inverted U shape relationship with group performance (Cavarretta, 2007; Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007
this practically means that too low levels of diversity are detrimental, moderate levels of diversity are the optimal in terms of maximizing performance and high levels of diversity are also detrimental
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties…
conformity : the individual tendency to align with the direction of the group
The Solomon Asch Experiment (1951, 1956)
75% of the subjects conformed at least once
average conformity level was 37%
2.bin
The “Triumph” of Conformity: Groupthink
groupthink: flawed decision making of over-cohesive groups (Irving Janis, 1971)
Janis identified a series of groupthink antecedents & symptoms that may determine the probability that groupthink may be or will be in effect
the more antecedents & symptoms identified in a group the greater the probability that the group is or will fall a victim of groupthink
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
The “Umbrella” of the Group: Groupshift
groupshift: the group final decision in terms of risk-taking tends to exaggerate the initial dominant position held within the group
risk averse groups tend to become even more risk averse
risk taking groups tend to become even more risk taking
it seems that more often the shift is towards more risk
groupshift can be viewed as a special case of groupthink
most probable cause is the sense of de-individualization of responsibility felt by members: the responsibility “umbrella” provided by the group
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Advantages of Groups over Individuals
Higher level of information & knowledge
Broader perspective (diversity) on issues
Better problem comprehension
More alternatives considered
*
Conflict
Negative social pressure
Disadvantages of Groups
Types of Group Decision Making
Reaching a consensus
Using the Delphi Technique
Brainstorming
A common group practice. This technique requires group members to generate as many ideas as possible, quickly and without inhibition. It precedes decision-making. For brainstorming to work effectively, all members must agree to and deliberately follow four rules:
1. All criticism is ruled out
« Freewheeling » is welcomed
Delphi Technique
A group decision making technique that uses questionnaires to reach consensus. More effective when geographically dispersed members need to reach a decision, or when expert information is needed from people outside the organization.
Four phases
1. Exploration of the subject by the individual members
2. Reaching understanding of the group’s view of the issues
3. Discussion and evaluation of any reasons for differences
4. Final evaluation or all information
*
Nominal Group Technique
The NGT works best when the group is so large that free
discussion is difficult, or when members disagree and consensus cannot be reached.
In this technique, members reach consensus by following this sequence:
ideas are generated (brainstorming)
group: a set of interacting individuals who may have come together formally or informally towards achieving a specific agenda (common stated goals) or not
group cohesion (cohesiveness): the perceived/felt psycho-cognitive proximity/identification among its members → how much close they feel to each other
group cohesion has been found to differ across national cultures
team: a rather formal group of individuals characterized by a high degree of cohesion among its members towards achieving a specific agenda
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Tuckman’s (1965) Five-Stages of Group Development
forming: getting acquainted - “testing the waters”→ completed when group membership is “realized”
storming: intra-group conflict about group constraints on “individuality” as well as to who will lead the group and how tasks will be distributed → completed when leadership hierarchy and task distribution are solidified (formal structure)
norming: development of consensus about what constitutes “correct” behavior within the group which upgrades group cohesion → completed when the informal structure of the group is solidified
performing: both formal and informal structure of the group are fully functional and promote the focus in performing the task at hand → completed when the group goals are attained
adjourning: preparing to disband while celebrating accomplishment and perhaps starting to feel nostalgic because of the loss of any affective relationships developed during the group’s life which is due shortly → completed when the group is completely dissolved
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties
group size does affect overall group behavior
whether the effect is positive or negative depends on the type of the behavior examined
smaller groups are faster at completing tasks and taking action while individuals perform better in smaller groups (~5 members)
larger groups are better in critical thinking & problem solving (>12 members)
groups with an odd number of members are preferable to those with an even number
the optimal group size seems to be 5-7 members
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties…
social loafing or free-rider effect: the individual tendency to expend less effort when performing collectively than individually
The Rope-Pulling Experiment (Max Ringelman 1920’s)
total group effort is less than the sum of individual members’ efforts
social loafing tends to increase with team size everything else kept constant→ individual performance assessment becomes critical in such cases
the determining factor is group cohesiveness
there is ample evidence of extremely cohesive teams where the total team effort approaches that of the sum of individual members or even super-exceeds that
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties…
roles: a set of specific behavior patterns expected by an individual who occupies a certain group position which defines them
role identity: those attitudes & behavior consistent with a role
role perception: the individual view of his role identity
role expectation: the appropriate attitudes and behavior consistent with a specific role in a given situation that others envisage → e.g. psychological contract: the informal agreement between the individual and the representative of the organization/management that sets what is expected by the individual in exchange for what
role conflict: a situation where an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties…
when the role perception of the employee fulfills his/her supervisor’s role expectation the employee will receive a higher performance evaluation and vice versa
high congruence between the role perception of the employee and his/her supervisor’s role expectation is highly correlated with high employee job satisfaction
role conflict is highly correlated with job-induced tension and job dissatisfaction
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties…
norms: shared informal standards of attitudes & behavior
one of the basic ingredients of the informal structure (culture & climate)
performance norms
appearance norms
Group Properties…
norms interact with cohesiveness
when performance norms are high, a high cohesive group outperforms a less cohesive one
when performance norms are low and cohesiveness high, performance will be low
when both performance norms and cohesiveness are low, performance will fall into the low-to-moderate range
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties…
surface-level (demographic) diversity: readily observable or available (e. g. through CV’s) individual differences in race, ethnicity, national culture, gender, age, physical attributes, language, education & professional experience
Harrison, Price & Bell (1998)
Group Properties…
separation: quantitative polarization/segmentation within the group→ e.g. 40% French & 60% German
variety: qualitative differentiation within the group and how evenly this is distributed among the members of the group → e.g. how many types of undergraduate specializations exist within the group over the total number of members
disparity: the mean (average) value of the individual members’ scores with reference to a given quantitative variable and how individual scores are distributed around the mean→ taking into account the average score of GMA and the standard deviation or variance of the distribution of individual GMA scores
Harrison and Klein (2007)
Group Properties…
surface-level diversity appears to affect more group outcomes early in the life of a group while deep-level later on
the various types of surface-level diversity are considered proxies (approximations) of some type of deep-level diversity
deep-level diversity is by far a better predictor of group outcomes than surface level diversity
diversity in general is relatively more prosperous for highly complex & difficult tasks (exception disparity in abilities → e.g. GMA: Stewart, 2006) & detrimental when speed of decision making is top priority
the relationship of diversity with group performance is highly complex→ multiple intervening situational variables
diversity in general appears to have an inverted U shape relationship with group performance (Cavarretta, 2007; Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007
this practically means that too low levels of diversity are detrimental, moderate levels of diversity are the optimal in terms of maximizing performance and high levels of diversity are also detrimental
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Group Properties…
conformity : the individual tendency to align with the direction of the group
The Solomon Asch Experiment (1951, 1956)
75% of the subjects conformed at least once
average conformity level was 37%
2.bin
The “Triumph” of Conformity: Groupthink
groupthink: flawed decision making of over-cohesive groups (Irving Janis, 1971)
Janis identified a series of groupthink antecedents & symptoms that may determine the probability that groupthink may be or will be in effect
the more antecedents & symptoms identified in a group the greater the probability that the group is or will fall a victim of groupthink
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
The “Umbrella” of the Group: Groupshift
groupshift: the group final decision in terms of risk-taking tends to exaggerate the initial dominant position held within the group
risk averse groups tend to become even more risk averse
risk taking groups tend to become even more risk taking
it seems that more often the shift is towards more risk
groupshift can be viewed as a special case of groupthink
most probable cause is the sense of de-individualization of responsibility felt by members: the responsibility “umbrella” provided by the group
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September 2009
Advantages of Groups over Individuals
Higher level of information & knowledge
Broader perspective (diversity) on issues
Better problem comprehension
More alternatives considered
*
Conflict
Negative social pressure
Disadvantages of Groups
Types of Group Decision Making
Reaching a consensus
Using the Delphi Technique
Brainstorming
A common group practice. This technique requires group members to generate as many ideas as possible, quickly and without inhibition. It precedes decision-making. For brainstorming to work effectively, all members must agree to and deliberately follow four rules:
1. All criticism is ruled out
« Freewheeling » is welcomed
Delphi Technique
A group decision making technique that uses questionnaires to reach consensus. More effective when geographically dispersed members need to reach a decision, or when expert information is needed from people outside the organization.
Four phases
1. Exploration of the subject by the individual members
2. Reaching understanding of the group’s view of the issues
3. Discussion and evaluation of any reasons for differences
4. Final evaluation or all information
*
Nominal Group Technique
The NGT works best when the group is so large that free
discussion is difficult, or when members disagree and consensus cannot be reached.
In this technique, members reach consensus by following this sequence:
ideas are generated (brainstorming)
