International Managers Group Term 2 – Session 11

Two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to
achieve particular objectives (Robbins, Judge, & Vohra, 2015)

Number of individuals interacting with each other with respect to:

 Common motives and goals
 An accepted division of labour, i.e. roles
 Established status (social rank, dominance) relationships
 Accepted norms and values with reference to matters relevant to the group
 Development of accepted sanctions (praise and punishment) if and when norms were
respected or violated (Sherif & Sherif, )
Study groups have become a rite of passage at M.B.A. programs, a way for students to
practice working in teams and a reflection of the increasing demand for employees who
can adroitly navigate group dynamics. To prepare students for that complex world,
business schools around the country have revised their curriculums to emphasize team
focused learning.
 THE SOCIAL NETWORK

CLIQUE

STAR

ISOLATE
 FORMAL vs INFORMAL
 A designated work group defined by an organization’s structure – HR team
vs
 A spontaneous group that emerges in response to the need for social
contact – friends circles
 PRIMARY vs SECONDARY
 Small group whose members have close and lasting relationships - family
vs
 Large groups with weak emotional ties and less personal knowledge –
residents of a housing estate
 IN-GROUP vs OUT-GROUP
 Social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a
member
vs
 social group with which an individual does not identify
Tuckman (1965, 1977) – Stages of Group Development

http://wheatoncollege.edu/sail/files/2011/12/groupDevelopment.jpg
http://facilitatoru.com/integral-facilitation/archetypes-of-collaboration/relational-facilitator/the-muse/
PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM MODEL

Robbins et al., 2015

PROBLEMS OF GROUPS
SOCIAL LOAFING (or Freeriding!)
Group Conformity
CHAMELEON EFFECT (Chartrand & GROUPTHINK (Janis, 1971)
Bagh, 1999) – changing one’s actions or
thoughts to match that of the group

Group Polarization – If a group is like-

minded, discussion strengthens the
previous opinion

Examples: Pearl Harbour,

Challenger space shuttle, Bay of
Pigs invasion
A group of people with a full set of complementary skills required to complete
a task, job, or project.

Team members

(1)operate with a high degree of interdependence,

(2)share authority and responsibility for self-management,
(3)are accountable for the collective performance
Group Team
 Individual accountability  Individual and Collective Accountability

 No clear common goal  Common goal

 Clear leadership
 No clear leadership

 Complementary skills
 Random or varied skills

 Presence of synergy
 Synergy not necessary

 E.g., Cricket team

 E.g., cricket fans
 groups tend to innovate faster, see mistakes more quickly and find better solutions
to problems.
 people working in teams tend to achieve better results and report higher job
satisfaction
 profitability increases when workers are persuaded to collaborate more

CONVERSATIONAL TURN TAKING AVERAGE SOCIAL SENSITIVITY

PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY
 Small Size – 10 members or fewer
 Complementary Skills
 Common purpose
 Specific goals
 Common approach
 Mutual accountability

Robbins & Hunsaker, 2015

 virtual teams are 10 to 43 percent more productive than traditional teams
 Rapid, instant communication
 A common time
 Conscientious and self-starting adults
 Virtual team-building activities
 Periodic face-to-face meetings