9 Foundations

of Group Behavior

Source: Handout/Reuters

312
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

9-1 Distinguish between the different types of groups. 9-5 Show how status and size differences affect group
performance.
9-2 Describe the punctuated-equilibrium model of
group development. 9-6 Describe how issues of cohesiveness and diversity
can be integrated for group effectiveness.
9-3 Show how role requirements change in different
situations. 9-7 Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of group
decision making.
9-4 Demonstrate how norms exert influence on an
individual’s behavior.

MyManagement If your professor has chosen to assign this, go to the Assignments section of
mymanagementlab.com to complete the chapter warm up.

Crushed by the herd

A nswer quickly: If you were an employee of this car’s manufacturer and

could have prevented the accident that killed two people and injured a
third, would you?
No doubt you answered “yes” automatically, but if we took
a few minutes to think about it, we might have to honestly
answer “maybe.” When we are members of groups as power-
ful as those in General Motors (GM), it can be very difficult
to predict our behavior. Our perceptions of right and wrong
can become skewed, making even straightforward ethical
decisions like this one confusing.
Courtland Kelley of GM (which made the Chevrolet Cobalt
in the photo) learned firsthand the pressures groups can exert
on an individual. As the leader of GM’s U.S. safety inspection
program, he expected his workgroups to act upon the seri-
ous safety flaws he found in the vehicle. Instead, “Group after
group and committee after committee within GM that reviewed
the issue failed to take action or acted too slowly,” a later
report noted. Kelley’s colleague, auditor William McAleer, agreed that man-
agement refused to acknowledge safety issues with vehicles. “Any time
you had a problem, you ran into resistance,” he said. “Nobody owns [the]
defect. And the plant can say, ‘It was working when it left here.’ And the
supplier can say, ‘My part was good.’ It relieves everybody of responsibility.”
314 PART 3 The Group

When Kelley pushed harder to have the Cobalt’s faulty ignition switch
addressed, management actively discouraged his efforts. The group or-
dered him to stay quiet about defects and rename them as mere conve-
nience issues. At one point, his direct supervisor forbade him to share
data on serious defects with McAleer and threatened to transfer him to
a lesser position on the outskirts of town, while the management group
tried to stifle the information. Kelley said, “I heard them have many discus-
sions about not wanting to notify the government, not putting voice mails
out to dealers, because the government could get them” and learn of the
defects.
When Kelley couldn’t be silenced, the group pressured him into toning
down the wording in his reports and shuffled him into less responsible jobs.
McAleer, who suffered similar circumstances until he was laid off in 2004,
observed, “The system acts as if raising a safety issue internally were an
act of corporate treason.” Kelley landed off the organization chart in a “spe-
cial assignment job,” where he was told to “come up with charts, predict
warranty for the vehicle, but not find every problem that GM might have.”
McAleer said of Kelley, “He still has a job—he doesn’t have a career. He
has no possibility of promotion.” Kelley was not fired likely only because he
brought lawsuits against GM.
On the positive side, Kelley’s efforts have doubtlessly saved lives. After
13 deaths and 54 crashes, 2,084,000 Cobalts were recalled, as were
almost 70,000 other vehicles with defects he found. From this standpoint,
the battle he fought and his years in a “GM purgatory” job have been worth
it. “I felt morally responsible to fix a problem that I found in a vehicle,” he
said of his work on the Chevy Trailblazer. However, his heroic efforts have
cost him many court battles, and he has developed chest pains, panic at-
tacks, depression, and insomnia. “I clearly saw him age drastically,” his doc-
tor, Van Alstine, said. “You just knew he was under a tremendous amount of
stress. . . . It shook him to the core.”

Sources: G. Gutierrez and R. Gardella, “‘Willful Ignorance’ Ex-Auditor Blasts GM for Cutting
Safety Program,” NBC News, July 9, 2014, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/gm-recall/
willful-ignorance-ex-auditor-blasts-gm-cutting-safety-program-n152311; T. Higgins and N.
Summers, “If Only They Had Listened,” Bloomberg Businessweek, June 2014, 48–53; and
S. McEachern, “General Motors ‘Whistleblower’ Was Told to Back Off after Finding Safety
Flaws,” GM Authority, June 19, 2014, http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/06/general-
motors-whistleblower-was-told-to-back-off-after-finding-safety-flaws/.

T he story of Courtland Kelley’s attempts to counter the effects of group

pressure provides us with a powerful example of the ways groups can
(mis)behave. Even though Kelley resisted for all the right ethical reasons,
sometimes countering group pressure can mean costly consequences for the
individual, as he found.
 Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 315

Groups have their place—and their pitfalls. Some groups can exert a
powerful positive influence, and others can be tragically negative. The objec-
tives of this chapter and Chapter 10 are to familiarize you with group and team
concepts, provide you with a foundation for understanding how groups and
teams work, and show you how to create effective working units. Let’s begin by
defining a group.

Defining and Classifying Groups

9-1 Distinguish between the
different types of groups.
In organizational behavior, a group is two or more individuals, interacting
and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives.
Groups can be either formal or informal. A formal group is defined by the orga-
group Two or more individuals, interacting
and interdependent, who have come together
nization’s structure, with designated work assignments and established tasks. In
to achieve particular objectives. formal groups, the behaviors team members should engage in are stipulated by
and directed toward organizational goals. The six members of an airline flight
formal group A designated workgroup crew are a formal group, for example. In contrast, an informal group is neither
defined by an organization’s structure.
formally structured nor organizationally determined. Informal groups in the
informal group A group that is neither work environment meet the need for social contact. Three employees from dif-
formally structured nor organizationally ferent departments who regularly have lunch or coffee together are an informal
determined; such a group appears in group. These types of interactions among individuals, though informal, deeply
response to the need for social contact.
affect their behavior and performance.

social Identity
People often feel strongly about their groups partly because, as research indi-
cates, shared experiences amplify our perception of events.1 Also, according to
research in Australia, sharing painful experiences, in particular, increases our
felt bond and trust with others.2 Why do people form groups, and why do they
feel so strongly about them? Consider the celebrations that follow when a sports
team wins a national championship. The winner’s supporters are elated, and
sales of team-related shirts, jackets, and hats skyrocket. Fans of the losing team
feel dejected, even embarrassed. Why? Even though fans have little to do with
social identity theory Perspective that the actual performance of the sports team, their self-image can be wrapped up
considers when and why individuals consider in their identification with the group. Our tendency to personally invest in the
themselves members of groups. accomplishments of a group is the territory of social identity theory.

Jeffrey Webster, director of human

resources at a Nissan plant in
Mississippi, also serves as the
director of the plant’s gospel choir.
Choir members are a diverse group
of employees who identify with each
other as they all share a love of
singing and performing for fellow
workers, company executives, state
officials, and community events.
Source: Rogelio V. Solis/AP Images
316 PART 3 The Group

Social identity theory proposes that people have emotional reactions to the
failure or success of their group because their self-esteem gets tied to what-
ever happens to the group.3 When your group does well, you bask in reflected
glory, and your own self-esteem rises. When your group does poorly, you might
feel bad about yourself, or you might reject that part of your identity like “fair-
weather fans.” Furthermore, if your group is devalued and disrespected, your
social identity might feel threatened, and you might endorse deviant behaviors
to “get even” and restore your group’s standing.4 Social identities can even lead
people to experience pleasure as a result of seeing another group suffer. We
often see these feelings of schadenfreude in the joy fans experience when a hated
team loses.5
People develop many identities through the course of their lives. You might
define yourself in terms of the organization you work for, the city you live
in, your profession, your religious background, your ethnicity, and/or your
gender. Over time, some groups you belong to may become more significant
to you than others. A U.S. expatriate working in Rome might be very aware of
being from the United States, for instance, but doesn’t give national identity
a second thought when transferring from Tulsa to Tucson.6 We may thus pick
and choose which of our social identities are salient to the situation, or we may
find that our social identities are in conflict, such as the identities of business
leader and parent.7
Our social identities help us understand who we are and where we fit in with
other people, and research indicates they bring us better health and lower levels
of depression because we become less likely to attribute negative situations to
internal or insurmountable reasons.8 However, to experience these good out-
comes, we need to feel our social identities are positive.9
Until now, we’ve discussed social identities primarily in a cultural context.
However, the identity we may feel with respect to our organization is only one
aspect of our work-related identities (see OB Poll). Within our organizations
and workgroups, we can develop many identities through: (1) relational iden-
tification, when we connect with others because of our roles, and (2) collective
identification, when we connect with the aggregate characteristics of our groups.

Ob POLL
Most People report Drinking with coworkers is acceptable

Never
At a meal during a job interview
4% 14%
At a meal with coworkers
22% At a holiday party

At the celebration of 70%

a company milestone 28%

32%
40%
At a retirement party
At a meal with a client or customer

Note: Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) survey of 501 individuals and how drinking is viewed in their organization at a range of work-
related activities.
Source: Based on S. M. Heathfield, “To Drink or Not to Drink: Does Alcohol Drinking Mix Safely with Work Events?” About.com Guide, 2013, http://
humanresources.about.com/od/networking/qt/drink_i3.htm.
 Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 317

Often, our identification with our workgroups is stronger than with our organi-
zations, but both are important to positive outcomes in attitudes and behaviors.
Additionally, if we have low identification in relation to the group, there may
be increased among by group members. If we have low identification with our
organizations, we may experience decreased satisfaction and engage in fewer
organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs).10

Ingroups and Outgroups

ingroup favoritism Perspective in which Ingroup favoritism occurs when we see members of our group as better than
we see members of our ingroup as better than other people, and people not in our group as all the same. Recent research
other people, and people not in our group as suggests that people with low openness and/or low agreeableness are more sus-
all the same.
ceptible to ingroup favoritism.11
outgroup The inverse of an ingroup, which Whenever there is an ingroup, there is by necessity an outgroup, which
can mean everyone outside the group, but is sometimes everyone else, but is usually an identified group known by the
more usually an identified other group. ingroup’s members. For example, if my ingroup is the Republican party in U.S.
politics, my outgroup might be anyone in the world who is not a Republican, but
it’s more likely to be the other U.S. political parties, or perhaps just Democrats.
When there are ingroups and outgroups, there is often animosity between
them. One of the most powerful sources of ingroup–outgroup feelings is the
practice of religion, even in the workplace. One global study, for instance, found
that when groups became heavily steeped in religious rituals and discussions,
they became especially discriminatory toward outgroups and aggressive if the
outgroups had more resources.12 Consider an example from another study of
a U.K. Muslim organization that supported Al-Qaeda and identified moderate
U.K. Muslims as its outgroup. The Al-Qaeda ingroup was not neutral toward the
moderate outgroup; instead, the ingroup denounced the moderates, denigrat-
ing them as deviant and threatening outward aggression.13

social Identity threat

Ingroups and outgroups pave the way for social identity threat, which is akin to
stereotype threat (see Chapter 6). With social identity threat, individuals believe
they will be personally negatively evaluated due to their association with a deval-
ued group, and they may lose confidence and performance effectiveness. One
study found, for example, that when subjects from high and low socioeconomic
backgrounds took a high-pressure math test, the low-status subjects who felt
social identity threat could be as confident as the high-status subjects only when
they were first deliberately encouraged about their abilities.14

Stages of Group Development

Watch It!
If your professor has assigned this, go to the Assignments section of mymanagementlab.com
to complete the video exercise titled Witness.org: Managing Groups & Teams.

9-2 Describe the punctuated-

equilibrium model of group
Temporary groups with finite deadlines pass through a unique sequencing of
actions (or inaction): (1) Their first meeting sets the group’s direction, (2) the
development. first phase of group activity is one of inertia and thus slower progress, (3) a
transition takes place exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time,
(4) this transition initiates major changes, (5) a second phase of inertia follows
the transition, and (6) the group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly
318 PART 3 The Group

Exhibit 9-1 the Punctuated-equilibrium Model

(High)

Performance
Phase 2
Completion
First
Meeting
Transition
Phase 1

(Low) A (A+B)/2 B
Time

punctuated-equilibrium model A set accelerated activity.15 This pattern, called the punctuated-equilibrium model, is
of phases that temporary groups go through shown in Exhibit 9-1.
that involves transitions between inertia and
Let’s discuss each stage of the model. At the first meeting, the group’s gen-
activity.
eral purpose and direction is established, and then a framework of behavioral
patterns and assumptions through which the group will approach its project
emerges, sometimes in the first few seconds of the group’s existence. Once set,
the group’s direction is solidified and is unlikely to be reexamined throughout
the first half of its life. This is a period of inertia—the group tends to stand still
or become locked into a fixed course of action even if it gains new insights that
challenge initial patterns and assumptions.
One of the most interesting discoveries in studies was that groups experi-
enced a transition precisely halfway between the first meeting and the official
deadline—whether members spent an hour on their project or 6 months. The
midpoint appears to work like an alarm clock, heightening members’ aware-
ness that their time is limited and they need to get moving. This transition ends
phase 1 and is characterized by a concentrated burst of changes, dropping of
old patterns, and adoption of new perspectives. The transition sets a revised
direction for phase 2, a new equilibrium or period of inertia in which the group
executes plans created during the transition period.
The group’s last meeting is characterized by a final burst of activity to finish
its work. In summary, the punctuated-equilibrium model characterizes groups as
exhibiting long periods of inertia interspersed with brief revolutionary changes
triggered primarily by members’ awareness of time and deadlines. This is not
the only model of group stages by far, but it is a dominant theory with strong
support. Keep in mind, however, that this model doesn’t apply to all groups but
is suited to the finite quality of temporary task groups working under a time
deadline.16

Group Property 1: Roles

9-3 Show how role
requirements change in
Workgroups shape members’ behavior, and they also help explain individual
behavior as well as the performance of the group itself. Some defining group
different situations. properties are roles, norms, status, size, cohesiveness, and diversity. We’ll discuss
each in the sections that follow. Let’s begin with the first group property, roles.
Shakespeare said, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely
players.” Using the same metaphor, all group members are actors, each playing
 Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 319

role A set of expected behavior patterns a role, a set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a
attributed to someone occupying a given given position in a social unit. We are required to play a number of diverse roles,
position in a social unit.
both on and off our jobs. As we’ll see, one of the tasks in understanding behav-
ior is grasping the role a person is currently playing.
Bill is a plant manager with EMM Industries, a large electrical equipment
manufacturer in Phoenix. He fulfills a number of roles—employee, member
of middle management, and electrical engineer. Off the job, Bill holds more
roles: husband, father, Catholic, tennis player, member of the Thunderbird
Country Club, and president of his homeowners’ association. Many of these
roles are compatible; some create conflicts. How does Bill’s religious commit-
ment influence his managerial decisions regarding layoffs, expense padding,
and provision of accurate information to government agencies? A recent offer
of promotion requires Bill to relocate, yet his family wants to stay in Phoenix.
Can the role demands of his job be reconciled with the demands of his husband
and father roles?
Different groups impose different role requirements on individuals. Like Bill,
we all play a number of roles, and our behavior varies with each. But how do we
know each role’s requirements? We draw upon our role perceptions to frame our
ideas of appropriate behaviors, and learn the expectations of our groups.

role Perception
role perception An individual’s view of Our view of how we’re supposed to act in a given situation is a role perception.
how he or she is supposed to act in a given We get role perceptions from stimuli all around us—for example, friends,
situation.
books, films, and television, as when we form an impression of politicians from
House of Cards. Apprenticeship programs allow beginners to watch an expert so
they can learn to act as they should.

role expectations
role expectations How others believe Role expectations are the way others believe you should act in a given context.
a person should act in a given situation. A U.S. federal judge is viewed as having propriety and dignity, while a football
coach is seen as aggressive, dynamic, and inspiring to the players.
psychological contract An unwritten In the workplace, we look at role expectations through the perspective of the
agreement that sets out what management psychological contract: an unwritten agreement that exists between employees
expects from an employee and vice versa. and employers. This agreement sets out mutual expectations.17 Management

Les Hatton, manager of a Recreational

Equipment, Inc., store in Manhattan,
pumps up employees before the
store’s grand opening. Part of the
psychological contract between REI
and its employees is the expectation
that salespeople will display
enthusiasm and generate excite-
ment while welcoming and serving
customers.
Source: Matt Payton/AP Images
320 PART 3 The Group

is expected to treat employees justly, provide acceptable working conditions,

clearly communicate what is a fair day’s work, and give feedback on how well
an employee is doing. Employees are expected to demonstrate a good attitude,
follow directions, and show loyalty to the organization.
What happens if management is derelict in its part of the bargain? We can
expect negative effects on employee performance and satisfaction. One study
among restaurant managers found that violations of the psychological contract
were related to greater intentions to quit, while another study of a variety of dif-
ferent industries found psychological contracts were associated with lower levels
of productivity, higher levels of theft, and greater work withdrawal.18
There is evidence that perceptions of psychological contracts vary across
cultures. In France, where people are individualistic and power is more asym-
metric, contracts are perceived as self-interested yet favoring the more powerful
party. In Canada, where people are individualistic but power is more symmetric,
contracts are perceived as self-interested yet focused on balanced reciprocity. In
China, where people are collectivistic and power is more asymmetric, contracts
are perceived as going beyond the work context into employees’ lives. And in
Norway, where people are collectivistic but power is more symmetric, contracts
are perceived as more relational and based on trust.19

role Conflict
When compliance with one role requirement may make it difficult to comply
role conflict A situation in which an with another, the result is role conflict.20 At the extreme, two or more role ex-
individual is confronted by divergent role pectations may be contradictory. For example, if as a manager you were to pro-
expectations.
vide a performance evaluation of a person you mentored, your roles as evalua-
interrole conflict A situation in which tor and mentor may conflict. Similarly, we can experience interrole conflict21
the expectations of an individual’s different, when the expectations of our different, separate groups are in opposition. An
separate groups are in opposition. example can be found in work–family conflict, which Bill experiences when
expectations placed on him as a husband and father differ from those placed
on him as an executive with EMM Industries. Bill’s wife and children want to
remain in Phoenix, while EMM expects its employees to be responsive to the
company’s needs and requirements. Although it might be in Bill’s financial and
career interests to accept a relocation, the conflict centers on choosing between
family and work role expectations. Indeed, a great deal of research demon-
strates that work–family conflict is one of the most significant sources of stress
for most employees.22
Within organizations, most employees are simultaneously in occupations,
workgroups, divisions, and demographic groups, and these identities can con-
flict when the expectations of one clash with the expectations of another.23
During mergers and acquisitions, employees can be torn between their identi-
ties as members of their original organization and of the new parent company.24
Multinational organizations also have been shown to lead to dual identification—
with the local division and with the international organization.25

role Play and Assimilation

The degree to which we comply with our role perceptions and expectations—
even when we don’t agree with them initially—can be surprising. One of the
most illuminating role and identity experiments was done a number of years ago
by psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his associates.26 They created a “prison”
in the basement of the Stanford psychology building; hired emotionally
stable, physically healthy, law-abiding students who scored “normal average”
on personality tests; randomly assigned them the role of either “guard” or
“prisoner”; and established some basic rules.
 Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 321

It took little time for the “prisoners” to accept the authority positions of
the “guards” and for the mock guards to adjust to their new authority roles.
Consistent with social identity theory, the guards came to see the prisoners as a
negative outgroup, and they developed stereotypes about the “typical” prisoner
personality type. After the guards crushed a rebellion attempt on the second
day, the prisoners became increasingly passive. Whatever the guards “dished
out,” the prisoners took. The prisoners actually began to believe and act like
they were inferior and powerless. Every guard, at some time during the simula-
tion, engaged in abusive, authoritative behavior. One said, “I was surprised at
myself. . . . I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their
bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle, and I kept thinking: ‘I
have to watch out for them in case they try something.’” Surprisingly, during the
entire experiment—even after days of abuse—not one prisoner said, “Stop this.
I’m a student like you. This is just an experiment!” The researchers had to end
the study after only 6 days because of the participants’ pathological reactions.
What can we conclude from this study? Like the rest of us, the participants
had learned stereotyped conceptions of guard and prisoner roles from the mass
media and their own personal experiences in power and powerless relationships
gained at home (parent–child), in school (teacher–student), and in other situ-
ations. This background allowed them easily and rapidly to assume roles and,
with a vague notion of the social identity of their roles and no prior personality
pathology or training for the parts they were playing, to execute extreme forms
of behavior consistent with those roles.

Myth or science?
gossip and exclusion are toxic for groups

T
his is not necessarily true. But it’s according to research, Alex is likely to opportunity to gossip about the work of
certainly counterintuitive, so let’s cooperate with the group in response another subject, that subject cooperat-
explore the conditions. to the gossip, and others hearing and ed more than before; when the opportu-
What is gossip? Most of us might say spreading the gossip are likely also to nity to gossip was paired with the ability
gossip is talking about others, sharing cooperate by not acting on their impuls- to ostracize, that subject cooperated to
rumors, and speculating about others’ es toward bad behavior. a much greater degree.
behaviors; gossip affects a person’s What about excluding Alex? There Thus, gossip and exclusion may
reputation. We might also say gossip is are two types of exclusion in the work- provide groups with benefits, at least
malicious, but according to researchers, place: leaving someone out of a group, when the gossip is confined to truthful
it can serve positive social functions, and ostracizing an individual. Both lead work-related discussion, when the op-
too. Prosocial gossip can expose behav- to the same end—the person isn’t part portunity still exists to rejoin the group
ior that exploits other people, which can of the group—but while simply leaving with full standing, and when the group
lead to positive changes. For example, someone out of a group might not send norms are positive.
if Julie tells Chris that Alex is bullying a message of exclusion, ostracism cer-
Summer, then Chris has learned about tainly does. Ostracism is more of a felt Sources: M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, “The
Alex’s poor behavior through gossiping. punishment than gossip since it is more Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An
Integrative Review,” Perspectives on Psycho-
Chris might refuse to partner with Alex direct. Research indicates that ostra- logical Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245–74;
on a work project, which might limit cized individuals cooperate to a greater M. Feinberg, R. Willer, and M. Schultz, “Gos-
Alex’s opportunities with the organiza- degree when they are around the group sip and Ostracism Promote Cooperation in
Groups,” Psychological Science 25, no. 3
tion, preventing him from bullying more to show a willingness to conform, hop- (2014): 656–64; and I. H. Smith, K. Aquino,
people. Alternatively, as the gossip ing to be invited back into the group. S. Koleva, and J. Graham, “The Moral Ties
spreads, Alex might feel exposed for his Can gossip and ostracism work That Bind…Even to Out-Groups: The Interac-
tive Effect of Moral Identity and the Binding
behavior and conform to group expecta- together? Yes, according to a recent Moral Foundations,” Psychological Science
tions against bullying behavior. In fact, study. When subjects were given an (2014): 1554–62.
322 PART 3 The Group

A follow-up reality television show was conducted by the BBC.27 The BBC
results were dramatically different from those of the Stanford experiment,
partially because the show used a less intense simulated prison setting. The
“guards” were far more careful in their behavior, limiting their aggressive
treatment of “prisoners” and expressing concerns about how their actions
might be perceived. In short, they did not fully take on their authority roles,
possibly because they knew their behavior was being observed by millions of
viewers. These results suggest that less intense situations evoke less extreme
behavior, and abuse of roles can be limited when people are made conscious
of their behavior.

Group Property 2: Norms

9-4 Demonstrate how norms
exert influence on an
Did you ever notice that golfers don’t speak while their partners are putting?
Why not? The answer is norms.
individual’s behavior. All groups have established norms—acceptable standards of behavior shared
by members that express what they ought and ought not to do under certain
norms Acceptable standards of behavior
within a group that are shared by the group’s
circumstances. It’s not enough for group leaders to share their opinions—even
members. if members adopt the leaders’ views, the effect may last only 3 days!28 When
agreed to by the group, norms influence behavior with a minimum of external
controls. Different groups, communities, and societies have different norms,
but they all have them.29 Let’s discuss the levels of influence norms can exert
over us, starting with our emotions.

Norms and emotions

Have you ever noticed how the emotions of one member of your family, especially
strong emotions, can influence the emotions of the other members? A family
can be a highly normative group. So can a task group whose members work
together on a daily basis, because frequent communication can increase the
power of norms. A recent study found that, in a task group, individuals’ emo-
tions influenced the group’s emotions and vice versa. This may not be surprising,
but researchers also found that norms dictated the experience of emotions for
the individuals and for the groups—in other words, people grew to interpret
their shared emotions in the same way.30 As we discovered in Chapters 5 and 6,
our emotions and moods can shape our perspective, so the normative effect of
groups can powerfully influence group attitudes and outcomes.

Norms and Conformity

As a member of a group, you desire acceptance by the group. Thus, you are sus-
ceptible to conforming to group norms. Considerable evidence suggests that
groups can place strong pressures on individual members to change their at-
titudes and behaviors to match the group’s standard.31 The impact that group
conformity The adjustment of one’s pressures for conformity can have on an individual member’s judgment was
behavior to align with the norms of the group. demonstrated in studies by Solomon Asch and others.32 Asch made up groups
of seven or eight people who were asked to compare two cards. One card had
one line, and the other had three lines of varying length, one of which was
identical to the line on the one-line card, as Exhibit 9-2 shows. The difference
in line length was obvious; in fact, under ordinary conditions, subjects were
incorrect less than 1 percent of the time in announcing which of the three
lines matched the single line.
The experiment began with sets of matching exercises. Everyone gave the
right answers. On the third set, however, the first subject, who was part of the
 Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 323

Exhibit 9-2 examples of Cards used in Asch’s study

X A B C

research team, gave an obviously wrong answer—for example, saying “C” in

Exhibit 9-2. The next subject, also on the research team, gave the same wrong
answer, and so forth. Now the dilemma confronting the subject, who didn’t
know any of the subjects were on the research team, was this: publicly state a
perception that differed from the announced position of the others, or give an
incorrect answer that agreed with the others.
The results over many experiments showed 75 percent of subjects gave at
least one answer that conformed—that they knew was wrong but was consis-
tent with the replies of other group members—and the average conformer gave
wrong answers 37 percent of the time. This suggests that we feel the pressure
toward conformity with group norms. Other recent research with moral decision

An ethical Choice
Using Peer Pressure as an influence tactic

W
e’ve all experienced peer pres- However, peer pressure can also individuals to work toward team goals
sure, and it can be hard to be destructive. It can create a feeling and behave consistently with organiza-
behave differently from your of exclusion in those who do not go tional values, it can enhance ethical
friends and coworkers. As more work along with group norms and can be performance. But your behavior should
in organizations is performed in groups very stressful and hurtful for those who emphasize acceptance and rewarding
and teams, the possibilities and pitfalls don’t see eye-to-eye with the rest of the of positive behavior, rather than rejec-
of such pressure have become an in- group. Peer pressure itself can be an tion and exclusion, as a means of get-
creasingly important ethical issue for unethical practice that unduly influenc- ting everyone to behave consistently in
managers. es workers’ behavior and thoughts. And the group.
Peer pressure can be a positive while groups might pressure others into
force in some ways. In groups where good behavior, they can just as easily
Sources: E. Estrada and E. Vargas-Estra-
high effort and performance are the sway them to bad behavior. da, “How Peer Pressure Shapes Consen-
norms, peer pressure from coworkers, Should you use group peer pres- sus, Leadership, and Innovations in Social
whether direct or indirect, can encour- sure? As a leader, you may need to. Groups,” Scientific Reports 3 (2013), article
number 2905; A. Verghese, “The Healing Pow-
age high performance from those not One survey found that only 6 percent er of Peer Pressure,” Newsweek, March 14,
meeting expectations. A group with a of leaders reported being able to suc- 2011, www.newsweek.com; J. Meer, “Brother,
norm toward behaving ethically could cessfully influence their employees Can You Spare a Dime? Peer Pressure in
Charitable Solicitation,” Journal of Public Eco-
also use peer pressure to minimize on their own. Peer pressure hastens nomics 95, no. 7–8 (2011): 926–41; and L.
negative behavior. Thus, peer pressure a group toward consensus, and levels Potter, “Lack Influence at Work? Why Most
can promote all sorts of good behav- of peer pressure predict how much Leaders Struggle to Lead Positive Change,”
Yahoo, May 14, 2013, http://finance
iors, from donating to charity to volun- the leader can control the group. If .yahoo.com/news/lack-influence-why-most-
teering at the local soup kitchen. you use peer pressure to encourage leaders-121500672.html.
324 PART 3 The Group

making indicated an even stronger effect of conformity when subjects found the
nonconforming ideas not just incorrect but objectionable.33 Does that mean
we are mere robots? Certainly not. The flip side of the 37 percent of conform-
ing responses is the 63 percent of independent responses, and 95 percent gave
the correct (nonconforming) response at least once. Therefore, we feel the
pressure to conform, but it is not a perfect predictor of what we will do. Further-
more, we don’t tend to like the pressure. Asch wrote, “Those who participated
in this challenging experiment agreed nearly without exception that indepen-
dence was preferable to conformity.”34
Do individuals conform to the pressures of all groups to which they belong?
Obviously not, because people belong to many groups, and their norms vary
reference groups Important groups to and sometimes are contradictory. People conform to their reference groups,
which individuals belong or hope to belong in which a person is aware of other members, defines himself or herself as a
and with whose norms individuals are likely member or would like to be a member, and feels group members are significant
to conform.
to him or her. The implication, then, is that all groups do not impose equal
conformity pressures on their members.

Norms and behavior

Norms can cover any aspect of group behavior.35 As we’ve mentioned, norms in
the workplace significantly influence employee behavior. This may seem intui-
tive, but full appreciation of the influence of norms on worker behavior did not
occur until the Hawthorne Studies conducted between 1924 and 1932 at the
Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago.36
In the studies, the researchers first examined the relationship between the
physical environment and productivity. As they increased the light level for the
experimental group of workers, output rose for that unit and the control group.
But as they dropped the light level, productivity continued to increase. In fact,
productivity in the experimental group decreased only when the light intensity

From studies of employees at the

Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne
Works in Chicago, researchers gained
valuable insights into how individual
behavior is influenced by group norms.
They also learned that money was
less of a factor in determining worker
output than were group standards,
sentiments, and security.
Source: Hawthorne Museum of Morton College
 Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 325

had been reduced to that of moonlight, leading researchers to believe that

group dynamics, rather than the environment, influenced behavior.
The researchers next isolated a small group of women assembling telephones
so their behavior could be more carefully observed. Over the next several years,
this small group’s output increased steadily, and the number of personal and
sick absences was approximately one-third of that in the regular production
department. It became evident this group’s performance was significantly influ-
enced by its “special” status. The members thought they were in an elite group,
and that management showed concern about their interests by engaging in
experimentation. In essence, workers in both the illumination and assembly
experiments were really reacting to the increased attention they received.
A wage incentive plan was then introduced in the bank wiring observation
room. The most important finding was that employees did not individually
maximize their output. Rather, their role performance became controlled by
a group norm. Members were afraid that if they significantly increased their
output, the unit incentive rate might be cut, the expected daily output might
be increased, layoffs might occur, or slower workers might be reprimanded. So
the group established its idea of a fair output—neither too much nor too little.
Members helped each other ensure their reports were nearly level, and the
norms the group established included a number of behavioral “don’ts.” Don’t
be a rate-buster, turning out too much work. Don’t be a chiseler, turning out too
little work. Don’t squeal on any of your peers. The group enforced its norms with
name-calling, ridicule, and even punches to the upper arms of violators. It thus
operated well below its capability, using norms that were tightly established and
strongly enforced.

Positive Norms and Group Outcomes

One goal of every organization with corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives
is for its values to hold normative sway over employees. After all, if employees
aligned their thinking with positive norms, these norms would become stronger
and the probability of positive impact would grow exponentially. We might ex-
pect the same outcomes from political correctness (PC) norms. But what is the
effect of strong positive norms on group outcomes? The popular thinking is that
to increase creativity in groups, for instance, norms should be loosened. How-
ever, research on gender-diverse groups indicates that strong PC norms increase
group creativity. Why? Clear expectations about male-female interactions reduce
uncertainty about group expectations,37 which allows the members to more easily
express their creative ideas without combatting stereotype norms.
Positive group norms may well beget positive outcomes, but only if other
factors are present, too. For instance, in a recent study a high level of group
extraversion predicted helping behaviors more strongly when there were posi-
tive cooperation norms.38 As powerful as norms can be, though, not everyone
is equally susceptible to positive group norms. Individual personalities factor
in, too, as well as the level of a person’s social identity with the group. Also, a
recent study in Germany indicated that the more satisfied people were with
their groups, the more closely they followed group norms.39

Negative Norms and Group Outcomes

LeBron is frustrated by a coworker who constantly spreads malicious and
unsubstantiated rumors about him. Lindsay is tired of a member of her work-
group who, when confronted with a problem, takes out his frustration by yelling
and screaming at her and other members. And Mi-Cha recently quit her job as
a dental hygienist after being sexually harassed by her employer.
326 PART 3 The Group

What do these illustrations have in common? They represent employees

exposed to acts of deviant workplace behavior.40 As we discussed in Chapter 3,
deviant workplace behavior Voluntary counterproductive work behavior (CWB) or deviant workplace behavior (also
behavior that violates significant organiza- called antisocial behavior or workplace incivility) is voluntary behavior that violates
tional norms and, in so doing, threatens the significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of
well-being of the organization or its members.
Also called antisocial behavior or workplace the organization or its members. Exhibit 9-3 provides a typology of deviant
incivility. workplace behaviors, with examples of each.
Few organizations will admit to creating or condoning conditions that
encourage and maintain deviant behaviors. Yet they exist. For one, as we dis-
cussed before, a workgroup can become characterized by positive or negative
attributes. When those attributes are negative, such as when a workgroup is
high in psychopathy and aggression, the characteristics of deceit, amorality,
and intent to harm others are pronounced.41 Second, employees have been
reporting an increase in rudeness and disregard toward others by bosses and
coworkers in recent years. Workplace incivility, like many other deviant behav-
iors, has many negative outcomes for the victims.42 Nearly half of employees
who have suffered this incivility say it has led them to think about changing
jobs; 12 percent actually quit because of it.43 Also, a study of nearly 1,500
respondents found that in addition to increasing turnover intentions, incivility
at work increased reports of psychological stress and physical illness.44 Third,
research suggests that a lack of sleep, which is often caused by heightened
work demands and which hinders a person’s ability to regulate emotions and
behaviors, can lead to deviant behavior. As organizations have tried to do more
with less, pushing their employees to work extra hours, they may indirectly be
facilitating deviant behavior.45
Like norms in general, employees’ antisocial actions are shaped by the
group context within which they work. Evidence demonstrates deviant work-
place behavior is likely to flourish where it’s supported by group norms.46 For
example, workers who socialize either at or outside work with people who are
frequently absent from work are more likely to be absent themselves.47 Thus
when deviant workplace norms surface, employee cooperation, commitment,
and motivation are likely to suffer.

Exhibit 9-3 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

Sources: S. H. Appelbaum, G. D. Iaconi, and A. Matousek, “Positive and Negative Deviant Workplace Behaviors: Causes, Impacts, and
Solutions,” Corporate Governance 7, no. 5 (2007): 586–98; and R. W. Griffin, and A. O’Leary-Kelly, The Dark Side of Organizational
Behavior (New York: Wiley, 2004).
 Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 327

What are the consequences of workplace deviance for groups? Some research
suggests a chain reaction occurs in groups with high levels of dysfunctional
behavior.48 The process begins with negative behaviors like shirking, undermin-
ing coworkers, or being generally uncooperative. As a result of these behaviors,
the group collectively starts to have negative moods. These negative moods then
result in poor coordination of effort and lower levels of group performance.

Norms and Culture

Do people in collectivist cultures have different norms than people in individu-
alist cultures? Of course they do. But did you know that our orientation may be
changed, even after years of living in one society? In a recent experiment, an
organizational role-playing exercise was given to a neutral group of subjects; the
exercise stressed either collectivist or individualist norms. Subjects were then
given a task of their personal choice or were assigned one by an ingroup or out-
group person. When the individualist-primed subjects were allowed personal
choice of the task, or the collectivist-primed subjects were assigned the task by
an ingroup person, they became more highly motivated.49

Group Property 3: Status, and Group

Property 4: Size and Dynamics
9-5 Show how status and size
differences affect group
We’ve discussed how the roles we play and the norms we internalize tend to
dictate our behavior in groups. However, those are not the only two factors
performance. that influence who we are in a group and how the group functions. Have you
ever noticed how groups tend to stratify into higher- and lower-status members?
Sometimes the status of members reflects their status outside the group setting,
but not always. Also, status often varies between groups of different sizes. Let’s
examine how these factors affect a workgroup’s efficacy.

Group Property 3: status

status A socially defined position or rank Status—a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members
given to groups or group members by others. by others—permeates every society. Even the smallest group will show differ-
ences in member status over time. Status is a significant motivator and has major
behavioral consequences when individuals perceive a disparity between what
they believe their status is and what others perceive it to be.

status characteristics theory What determines status? According to status characteristics theory, status
A theory that states that differences in tends to derive from one of three sources:50
status characteristics create status hierarchies
within groups. 1. The power a person wields over others. Because they likely control the
group’s resources, people who control group outcomes tend to be perceived
as high status.
2. A person’s ability to contribute to a group’s goals. People whose contribu-
tions are critical to the group’s success tend to have high status.
3. An individual’s personal characteristics. Someone whose personal
characteristics are positively valued by the group (good looks, intelligence,
money, or a friendly personality) typically has higher status than someone
with fewer valued attributes.

status and Norms Status has some interesting effects on the power of norms
and pressures to conform. High-status individuals may be more likely to de-
viate from norms when they have low identification (social identity) with the
328 PART 3 The Group

Aaron Rodgers has high status as the

quarterback of the Green Bay Packers
football team. His status derives
from his ability to contribute to his
team’s success in winning games.
Rodgers’s teammates and coaches
value his character, leadership skills,
expertise in calling plays, and ability to
accurately throw touchdown passes
on the move.
Source: Matt Ludtke/AP Images

group.51 They also eschew pressure from lower-ranking members of other

groups. For instance, physicians actively resist administrative decisions made by
lower-ranking medical insurance company employees.52 High-status people are
also better able to resist conformity pressures than their lower-status peers. An
individual who is highly valued by a group but doesn’t need or care about the
group’s social rewards is particularly able to disregard conformity norms.53 In
general, bringing high-status members into a group may improve performance,
but only up to a point, perhaps because these members may introduce counter-
productive norms.54

status and Group Interaction People tend to become more assertive when
they seek to attain higher status in a group.55 They speak out more often, criti-
cize more, state more commands, and interrupt others more often. Lower-
status members tend to participate less actively in group discussions; when
they possess expertise and insights that could aid the group, failure to fully uti-
lize these members reduces the group’s overall performance. But that doesn’t
mean a group of only high-status individuals would be preferable. Adding some
high-status individuals to a group of mid-status individuals may be advanta-
geous because group performance suffers when too many high-status people
are in the mix.56

status Inequity It is important for group members to believe the status

hierarchy is equitable. Perceived inequity creates disequilibrium, which
inspires various types of corrective behaviors. Hierarchical groups can lead
to resentment among those at the lower end of the status continuum. Large
differences in status within groups are also associated with poorer individual
performance, lower health, and higher intentions for the lower-status
members to leave the group.57
 Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 329

Groups generally agree within themselves on status criteria; hence, there is

usually high concurrence on group rankings of individuals. Business executives
may use personal income or the growth rate of their companies as determinants
of status. Government bureaucrats may use the size of their budgets, and blue-
collar workers may use their years of seniority. Managers who occupy central
positions in their social networks are typically seen as higher in status by their
subordinates, and this position actually translates into greater influence over
the group’s functioning.58
Groups generally form an informal status order based on ranking and com-
mand of needed resources.59 Individuals can find themselves in conflicts when
they move between groups whose status criteria are different, or when they join
groups whose members have heterogeneous backgrounds. Cultures also differ
in their criteria for conferring status upon individuals. When groups are hetero-
geneous, status differences may initiate conflict as the group attempts to recon-
cile the separate hierarchies. As we’ll see in Chapter 10, this can be a problem
when management creates teams of employees from varied functions.

status and stigmatization Although it’s clear that your own status affects the
way people perceive you, the status of people with whom you are affiliated
can also affect others’ views of you. Studies have shown that people who are
stigmatized can “infect” others with their stigma. This “stigma by association”
effect can result in negative opinions and evaluations of the person affiliat-
ed with the stigmatized individual, even if the association is brief and purely
coincidental. Of course, many of the foundations of cultural status differenc-
es have no merit in the first place. For example, men interviewing for a job
were viewed as less qualified when they were sitting next to an obese woman
in a  waiting room. Another study looking at the effects of being associated
with an overweight person found that even when onlookers were told the tar-
get person and the overweight person were unrelated, the target person was
still devalued.60

Group status Early in life, we acquire an “us and them” mentality.61 You may
have correctly surmised that if you are in an outgroup, your group is of lower
status in the eyes of the associated ingroup’s members. Culturally, sometimes
ingroups represent the dominant forces in a society and are given high status,
which can create discrimination against their outgroups. Low-status groups,
perhaps in response to this discrimination, are likely to leverage ingroup fa-
voritism to compete for higher status.62 When high-status groups then feel the
discrimination from low-status groups, they may increase their bias against the
outgroups.63 With each cycle, the groups become more polarized.

Group Property 4: size and dynamics

Does the size of a group affect the group’s overall behavior? Yes, but the effect
depends on what dependent variables we examine. Groups with a dozen or
more members are good for gaining diverse input. If the goal is fact-finding or
idea-generating, then, larger groups should be more effective. Smaller groups
of about seven members are better at doing something productive.
social loafing The tendency for One of the most important findings about the size of a group concerns social
individuals to expend less effort when working loafing, the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collec-
collectively than when working individually. tively than when alone.64 Social loafing directly challenges the assumption that
the productivity of the group as a whole should at least equal the sum of the
productivity of the individuals in it, no matter what the group size.
What causes social loafing? It may be a belief that others in the group are not
carrying their fair share. If you see others as lazy or inept, you can reestablish
330 PART 3 The Group

equity by reducing your effort. But simply failing to contribute may not be
enough for someone to be labeled a “free rider.” Instead, the group must
believe the social loafer is acting in an exploitive manner (benefitting at the
expense of other team members).65 Another explanation for social loafing is
the diffusion of responsibility. Because group results cannot be attributed to any
single person, the relationship between an individual’s input and the group’s
output is clouded. Individuals may then be tempted to become free riders and
coast on the group’s efforts.
The implications for OB are significant. When managers use collective work
situations, they must also be able to identify individual efforts. Furthermore,
greater performance diversity creates greater social loafing the longer a group
is together, which decreases satisfaction and performance.66
Social loafing appears to have a Western bias. It’s consistent with individual-
ist cultures, such as the United States and Canada, that are dominated by self-
interest. It is not consistent with collectivist societies, in which individuals are
motivated by group goals. For example, in studies comparing U.S. employees
with employees from China and Israel (both collectivist societies), the Chinese
and Israelis showed no propensity to engage in social loafing and actually per-
formed better in a group than alone.
Research indicates that the stronger an individual’s work ethic is, the less
likely that person is to engage in social loafing.67 Also, the greater the level
of conscientiousness and agreeableness in a group, the more likely that per-
formance will remain high whether there is social loafing or not.68 There
are ways to prevent social loafing: (1) set group goals, so the group has a
common purpose to strive toward; (2) increase intergroup competition,
which focuses on the shared group outcome; (3) engage in peer evaluations;
(4) select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in groups;
and (5)  base group rewards in part on each member’s unique contribu-
tions.69 Recent research indicates that social loafing can be counteracted by
publicly posting individual performance ratings for group members, too.70
Although no magic bullet will prevent social loafing, these steps should help
minimize its effect.

Young employees of Alibaba’s Tmall

online shopping site celebrate their
group’s achievement of increasing
the volume of sales orders during
China’s “Singles Day” shopping event.
Although social loafing is consistent
with individualistic cultures, in collec-
tivist societies such as China, employ-
ees are motivated by group goals and
perform better in groups than they do
by working individually.
Source: Han Chuanhao Xinhua News Agency/Newscom
 Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 331

Group Property 5: Cohesiveness, and Group

Property 6: Diversity
9-6 Describe how issues of
cohesiveness and diversity
For a group to be highly functioning, it must act cohesively as a unit, but not
because all the group members think and act alike. In some ways, the properties of
can be integrated for group cohesiveness and diversity need to be valued way back at the tacit establishment of
effectiveness. roles and norms—will the group be inclusive of all its members, regardless of dif-
ferences in backgrounds? Let’s discuss the importance of group cohesiveness first.

Group Property 5: Cohesiveness

cohesiveness The degree to which group Groups differ in their cohesiveness—the degree to which members are attracted
members are attracted to each other and are to each other and motivated to stay in the group. Some workgroups are cohesive
motivated to stay in the group. because the members have spent a great deal of time together, the group’s small
size or purpose facilitates high interaction, or external threats have brought
members close together.
Cohesiveness affects group productivity. Studies consistently show that the rela-
tionship between cohesiveness and productivity depends on the group’s perfor-
mance-related norms.71 If norms for quality, output, and cooperation with outsid-
ers are high, a cohesive group will be more productive than a less cohesive group.
But if cohesiveness is high and performance norms are low, productivity will be
low. If cohesiveness is low and performance norms are high, productivity increases,
but less than in the high-cohesiveness/high-norms situation. When cohesiveness
and performance-related norms are both low, productivity tends to fall into the
low-to-moderate range. These conclusions are summarized in Exhibit 9-4.
What can you do to encourage group cohesiveness? (1) Make the group
smaller, (2) encourage agreement with group goals, (3) increase the time mem-
bers spend together, (4) increase the group’s status and the perceived difficulty
of attaining membership, (5) stimulate competition with other groups, (6) give
rewards to the group rather than to individual members, and (7) physically
isolate the group.72

Group Property 6: diversity

diversity The extent to which members of The final property of groups we consider is diversity in the group’s membership,
a group are similar to, or different from, one or the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from,
another. one another. Overall, studies identify both costs and benefits from group
diversity.

Exhibit 9-4 relationship between Group Cohesiveness,

Performance Norms, and Productivity

Cohesiveness
High Low
Performance Norms

High High Moderate

productivity productivity

Low Low Moderate to

productivity low productivity
332 PART 3 The Group

Diversity appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early stages

of a group’s tenure; this often lowers group morale and raises dropout rates.
One study compared groups that were culturally diverse and homogeneous
(composed of people from the same country). On a wilderness survival test,
the groups performed equally well, but the members from the diverse groups
were less satisfied with their groups, were less cohesive, and had more conflict.73
Another study examined the effect of differences in tenure on the performance
of 67 engineering research and development groups.74 When most people had
roughly the same level of tenure, performance was high, but as tenure diversity
increased, performance dropped off. There was an important qualifier: Higher
levels of tenure diversity were not related to lower performance for groups when
there were effective team-oriented human resources (HR) practices. More spe-
cifically, groups in which members’ values or opinions differ tend to experience
more conflict, but leaders who can get the group to focus on the task at hand
and encourage group learning are able to reduce these conflicts and enhance
discussion of group issues.75 Gender diversity can also be a challenge to a group,
but if inclusiveness is stressed, group conflict and dissatisfaction are lowered.76
You may have correctly surmised that the type of group diversity matters.
Surface-level diversity—in observable characteristics such as national origin,
race, and gender—alerts people to possible deep-level diversity—in underlying
attitudes, values, and opinions. One researcher argues, “The mere presence
of diversity you can see, such as a person’s race or gender, actually cues a team
that there’s likely to be differences of opinion.”77 Surface-level diversity may
subconsciously cue team members to be more open-minded in their views.78
For example, two studies of MBA student groups found surface-level diversity
led to greater openness. The effects of deep-level diversity are less understood.
Research in Korea indicates that putting people with a high need for power with
those with a low need for power can reduce unproductive group competition,
whereas putting individuals with a similar need for achievement may increase
task performance.79
Although differences can lead to conflict, they also provide an opportunity to
solve problems in unique ways. One study of jury behavior found diverse juries
were more likely to deliberate longer, share more information, and make fewer
factual errors when discussing evidence. Altogether, the impact of diversity on
groups is mixed. It is difficult to be in a diverse group in the short term. However,
if members can weather their differences, over time diversity may help them be
more open-minded and creative and to do better. But even positive effects are
unlikely to be especially strong. As one review stated, “The business case (in
terms of demonstrable financial results) for diversity remains hard to support
based on the extant research.”80 Yet, other researchers argue that we shouldn’t
overlook the effects of homogeneity, many of which can be detrimental.81

PerSonAl InVenTory ASSeSSmenTS P I A

PERSONAL
INVENTORY
ASSESSMENT

communicating Supportively
Are you a supportive person? Take this PIA to find out if you communicate supportively.

One possible side effect in diverse teams—especially those that are diverse
faultlines The perceived divisions that
split groups into two or more subgroups based in terms of surface-level characteristics—is faultlines, or perceived divisions that
on individual differences such as sex, race, split groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as
age, work experience, and education. sex, race, age, work experience, and education.
 Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 333

For example, let’s say group A is composed of three men and three women.
The three men have approximately the same amount of work experience and
backgrounds in marketing. The three women have about the same amount of
work experience and backgrounds in finance. Group B has three men and three
women, but they all differ in terms of their experience and backgrounds. Two of
the men are experienced, while the other is new. One of the women has worked
at the company for several years, while the other two are new. In addition, two
of the men and one woman in group B have backgrounds in marketing, while
the other man and the remaining two women have backgrounds in finance. It is
thus likely that a faultline will result in subgroups of males and females in group
A but not in group B, based on the differentiating characteristics.
Research on faultlines has shown that splits are generally detrimental to
group functioning and performance. Subgroups may compete with each other,
which takes time away from core tasks and harms group performance. Groups
that have subgroups learn more slowly, make more risky decisions, are less cre-
ative, and experience higher levels of conflict. Subgroups may not trust each
other. Finally, satisfaction with subgroups is generally high, but the overall
group’s satisfaction is lower when faultlines are present.82
Are faultlines ever a good thing? One study suggested that faultlines based
on differences in skill, knowledge, and expertise could be beneficial when
the groups were in organizational cultures that strongly emphasized results.
Why? A results-driven culture focuses people’s attention on what’s important
to the company rather than on problems arising from subgroups.83 Another
study showed that problems stemming from strong faultlines based on gen-
der and educational major were counteracted when their roles were cross-cut
and the group as a whole was given a common goal to strive for. Together,
these strategies force collaboration between members of subgroups and focus
their efforts on accomplishing a goal that transcends the boundary imposed
by the faultline.84
Overall, although research on faultlines suggests that diversity in groups is
potentially a double-edged sword, recent work indicates they can be strategically
employed to improve performance.

Group Decision Making

9-7 Contrast the strengths and
weaknesses of group
The belief—characterized by juries—that two heads are better than one has
long been accepted as a basic component of the U.S. legal system and those
decision making. of many other countries. Many decisions in organizations are made by groups,
teams, or committees. We’ll discuss the advantages of group decision making,
along with the unique challenges group dynamics bring to the decision-making
process. Finally, we’ll offer some techniques for maximizing the group decision-
making opportunity.

Groups versus the Individual

Decision-making groups may be widely used in organizations, but are group
decisions preferable to those made by an individual alone? The answer depends
on a number of factors. Let’s begin by looking at the strengths and weaknesses
of group decision making.

strengths of Group decision Making Groups generate more complete information

and knowledge. By aggregating the resources of several individuals, groups
bring more input as well as heterogeneity into the decision process. They offer
increased diversity of views. This opens up the opportunity to consider more
334 PART 3 The Group

approaches  and alternatives. Finally, groups lead to increased acceptance of a

solution. Group members who participate in making a decision are more likely
to enthusiastically support and encourage others to accept it later.

Weaknesses of Group decision Making Group decisions are time-consuming

because groups typically take more time to reach a solution. There are confor-
mity pressures. The desire by group members to be accepted and considered an
asset to the group can squash any overt disagreement. Group discussion can be
dominated by one or a few members. If they’re low- and medium-ability members,
the group’s overall effectiveness will suffer. Finally, group decisions suffer from
ambiguous responsibility. In an individual decision, it’s clear who is accountable
for the final outcome. In a group decision, the responsibility of any single
member is diluted.

effectiveness and efficiency Whether groups are more effective than individ-
uals depends on how you define effectiveness. Group decisions are generally
more accurate than the decisions of the average individual in a group, but less
accurate than the judgments of the most accurate person.85 In terms of speed,
individuals are superior. If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effec-
tive. And if effectiveness means the degree of acceptance of achievable solutions,
the nod again goes to the group.86
But we cannot consider effectiveness without also assessing efficiency.
With few exceptions, group decision making consumes more work hours
than having an individual tackle the same problem. The exceptions tend to
be instances in which, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse input, the
single decision maker must spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talk-
ing to other people. In deciding whether to use groups, then, managers must
assess whether increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the
reductions in efficiency.
In summary, groups are an excellent vehicle for performing many steps in
the decision-making process and offer both breadth and depth of input for
information gathering. If group members have diverse backgrounds, the alter-
natives generated should be more extensive and the analysis more critical.
When the final solution is agreed on, there are more people in a group decision
to support and implement it. These pluses, however, may be more than offset by
the time consumed by group decisions, the internal conflicts they create, and
the pressures they generate toward conformity. We must be careful to define
the types of conflicts, however. Research in Korea indicates that group conflicts
about tasks may increase group performance, while conflicts in relationships
may decrease performance.87 In some cases, therefore, we can expect individu-
als to make better decisions than groups.

Groupthink and Groupshift

Two by-products of group decision making, groupthink and groupshift, can
affect a group’s ability to appraise alternatives objectively and achieve high-
quality solutions.
groupthink A phenomenon in which the
norm for consensus overrides the realistic
Groupthink relates to norms and describes situations in which group pres-
appraisal of alternative courses of action. sures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minor-
ity, or unpopular views. Groupthink attacks many groups and can dramatically
groupshift A change between a group’s hinder their performance. Groupshift describes the way group members tend
decision and an individual decision that a to exaggerate their initial positions when discussing a given set of alternatives to
member within the group would make; the
shift can be toward either conservatism or arrive at a solution. In some situations, caution dominates and there is a conser-
greater risk but it generally is toward a more vative shift, while in other situations groups tend toward a risky shift. Let’s look
extreme version of the group’s original position. at each phenomenon in detail.
 Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 335

Career Objectives
can i fudge the numbers and not take the blame?
I’ve got a great workgroup, except for collective, we want to stay in the group change the climate of the group to value
one thing: the others make me omit and can become vulnerable to pres- ethical behavior. Then the next time you
negative information about our group’s sures to conform. The pressure you’re need to report the numbers, you can
success that I’m in charge of as the getting from multiple members can call upon the group’s increased ethical
treasurer. They gang up on me, insult make you aware that you’re in the mi- awareness to gain support for your lead-
me, and threaten me, so in the end I nority in the group, and taunting can ership decisions.
report what they want. They say omit- make you feel like an outsider or lesser
ting the negative information is not re- member; therefore threats to harm your Sources: M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, “The
Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An
ally wrong, and it doesn’t violate our group standing may feel powerful. Integrative Review,” Perspectives on Psycho-
organization’s rules, but on my own So you have a choice: Submit to the logical Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245–74; M.
I would report everything. I need to pressure and continue misrepresenting A. Korsgaard, H. H. Brower, and S. W. Lester,
“It Isn’t Always Mutual: A Critical Review of
stay in the group or I’ll lose my job. your group’s success, or adhere to the Dyadic Trust,” Journal of Management 41,
If we are called out on the numbers, responsibility you have as the treasurer no. 1 (2015): 47–70; R. L. Priem and P. C.
can I just put the blame on the whole and come clean. From an ethical stand- Nystrom, “Exploring the Dynamics of Work-
group Fracture: Common Ground, Trust-With-
group? point, we hope you don’t consider the Trepidation, and Warranted Distrust,” Journal
— Jean-Claude first option an acceptable choice. To of Management 40, no. 3 (2014): 674–795.
Dear Jean-Claude: make a change, you may be able to use
social identification to your advantage. The opinions provided here are of the manag-
The short answer is that, since you are ers and authors only and do not necessar-
in a leadership role in the group, you Rather than challenging the group as a ily reflect those of their organizations. The
may not have the option of blaming the whole, try meeting with individual group authors or managers are not responsible for
members to build trust, talking to each any errors or omissions, or for the results ob-
others. Further, you may be held indi- tained from the use of this information. In no
vidually accountable as a leader for the as fellow members of a worthy group event will the authors or managers, or their
outcomes of this situation. that can succeed without any ethical related partnerships or corporations thereof,
quandaries. Don’t try to build a coalition; be liable to you or anyone else for any deci-
Your dilemma is not unusual. Once sion made or action taken in reliance on the
we think of ourselves as part of a instead, build trust with individuals and opinions provided here.

Groupthink Groupthink appears closely aligned with the conclusions Solomon

Asch drew in his experiments with a lone dissenter. Individuals who hold a
position different from that of the dominant majority are under pressure to
suppress, withhold, or modify their true feelings and beliefs. As members of
a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement—to be a positive part of
the group—than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption would improve ef-
fectiveness. Groups that are more focused on performance than learning are
especially likely to fall victim to groupthink and to suppress the opinions of
those who do not agree with the majority.88
Does groupthink attack all groups? No. It seems to occur most often when
there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive image of their
group they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat
to its positive image.89 One study showed that those influenced by groupthink
were more confident about their course of action early on;90 however, groups
that believe too strongly in the correctness of their course of action are more
likely to suppress dissent and encourage conformity than groups that are more
skeptical about their course of action.
What can managers do to minimize groupthink?91 First, they can monitor
group size. People grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases,
and although there is no magic number that will eliminate groupthink, indi-
viduals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups get larger
336 PART 3 The Group

than about 10 members. Managers should also encourage group leaders to

play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members
and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of delib-
eration. In addition, managers should appoint one group member to play the
role of devil’s advocate, overtly challenging the majority position and offering
divergent perspectives. Yet another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate
active discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group or inten-
sifying identity protection. Have group members delay discussion of possible
gains so they can first talk about the dangers or risks inherent in a decision.
Requiring members to initially focus on the negatives of an alternative makes
the group less likely to stifle dissenting views and more likely to gain an objec-
tive evaluation.

Groupshift or Group Polarization There are differences between group deci-

sions and the individual decisions of group members.92 In groups, discussion
leads members toward a more extreme view of the position they already held.
Conservatives become more cautious, and more aggressive types take on more
risk. We can view this group polarization as a special case of groupthink. The
group’s decision reflects the dominant decision-making norm—toward greater
caution or more risk—that develops during discussion.
The shift toward polarization has several explanations.93 It’s been argued,
for instance, that discussion makes the members more comfortable with each
other and thus more willing to express extreme versions of their original posi-
tions. Another argument is that the group diffuses responsibility. Group deci-
sions free any single member from accountability for the group’s final choice, so
a more extreme position can be taken. It’s also likely that people take extreme
positions because they want to demonstrate how different they are from the
outgroup.94 People on the fringes of political or social movements take on ever-
more-extreme positions just to prove they are really committed to the cause,
whereas those who are more cautious tend to take moderate positions to dem-
onstrate how reasonable they are.
So how should you use the findings on groupshift? Recognize that group
decisions exaggerate the initial position of individual members, that the shift
has been shown more often to be toward greater risk, and that which way a
group will shift is a function of the members’ pre-discussion inclinations.
We now turn to the techniques by which groups make decisions. These
reduce some of the dysfunctional aspects of group decision making.

Group decision-Making techniques

interacting groups Typical groups in The most common form of group decision making takes place in interacting
which members interact with each other face groups. Members meet face to face and rely on both verbal and nonverbal
to face. interaction to communicate. But as our discussion of groupthink demonstrated,
interacting groups often censor themselves and pressure individual members
toward conformity of opinion. Brainstorming and the nominal group technique
can reduce problems inherent in the traditional interacting group.

brainstorming An idea-generation brainstorming Brainstorming can overcome the pressures for conformity that
process that specifically encourages any and dampen creativity95 by encouraging any and all alternatives while withholding
all alternatives while withholding any criticism criticism. In a typical brainstorming session, a half-dozen to a dozen people sit
of those alternatives.
around a table. The group leader states the problem in a clear manner so all
participants understand. Members then freewheel as many alternatives as they
can in a given length of time. To encourage members to “think the unusual,”
no criticism is allowed, even of the most bizarre suggestions, and all ideas are
recorded for later discussion and analysis.
 Foundations of Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 337

Exhibit 9-5 evaluating Group effectiveness

Type of Group
Effectiveness Criteria Interacting Brainstorming Nominal
Number and quality of ideas Low Moderate High
Social pressure High Low Moderate
Money costs Low Low Low
Speed Moderate Moderate Moderate
Task orientation Low High High
Potential for interpersonal conflict High Low Moderate
Commitment to solution High Not applicable Moderate
Development of group cohesiveness High High Moderate

Brainstorming may indeed generate ideas—but not in a very efficient

manner. Research consistently shows individuals working alone generate more
ideas than a group in a brainstorming session. One reason for this is “production
blocking.” When people are generating ideas in a group, many are talking at
once, which blocks individuals’ thought process and eventually impedes the
sharing of ideas.96

nominal group technique A group Nominal Group technique The nominal group technique may be more effective.
decision-making method in which individual This technique restricts discussion and interpersonal communication during
members meet face to face to pool their the decision-making process. Group members are all physically present, as in a
judgments in a systematic but independent
fashion. traditional meeting, but they operate independently. Specifically, a problem is
presented and then the group takes the following steps:
1. Before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes down
ideas about the problem.
2. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. No
discussion takes place until all ideas have been presented and recorded.
3. The group discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them.
4. Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas. The
idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.
The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits a
group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking. Research
generally shows nominal groups outperform brainstorming groups.97
Each of the group-decision techniques has its own set of strengths and weak-
nesses. The choice depends on the criteria you want to emphasize and the
cost–benefit trade-off. As Exhibit 9-5 indicates, an interacting group is good for
achieving commitment to a solution, brainstorming develops group cohesive-
ness, and the nominal group technique is an inexpensive means for generating
a large number of ideas.

Summary
We can draw several implications from our discussion of groups. First, norms
control behavior by establishing standards of right and wrong. Second, status
inequities create frustration and can adversely influence productivity and will-
ingness to remain with an organization. Third, the impact of size on a group’s
338 PART 3 The Group

performance depends on the type of task. Fourth, cohesiveness may influence

a group’s level of productivity, depending on the group’s performance-related
norms. Fifth, diversity appears to have a mixed impact on group performance,
with some studies suggesting that diversity can help performance and others
suggesting the opposite. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced ten-
sion and job dissatisfaction.98 Groups can be carefully managed toward positive
organizational outcomes and optimal decision-making. The next chapter will
explore several of these conclusions in greater depth.

Implications for Managers

●● Recognize that groups can dramatically affect individual behavior in
organizations, to either positive or negative effect. Therefore, pay spe-
cial attention to roles, norms, and cohesion—to understand how these
are operating within a group is to understand how the group is likely to
behave.
●● To decrease the possibility of deviant workplace activities, ensure that
group norms do not support antisocial behavior.
●● Pay attention to the status aspect of groups. Because lower-status people
tend to participate less in group discussions, groups with high status dif-
ferences are likely to inhibit input from lower-status members and reduce
their potential.
●● Use larger groups for fact-finding activities and smaller groups for
action-taking tasks. With larger groups, provide measures of individual
performance.
●● To increase employee satisfaction, make certain people perceive their job
roles accurately.