FOUNDATIONS OF GROUP

BEHAVIOR
Session 19
 GROUPS
▪ A group is two or more people with a common relationship.

▪ Thus a group could be co-workers or people meeting for lunch or standing at

the bus stop.

▪ Unlike teams, groups do not necessarily engage in collective work that requires

interdependent effort.
WHY DO PEOPLE JOIN GROUPS?
▪ Social connection

▪ Networking

▪ Professional development

▪ Social Identity

▪ Need for affiliation

▪ To gain knowledge
GROUP PROPERTIES
ROLE
A set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a
given position in a social unit.
▪ Role perception: one’s perception of how to act in a given situation.

▪ Role expectations: how others believe one should act in a given

situation.

Role conflict: situation in which an individual faces divergent role

expectations.
▪ We can experience inter-role conflict when the expectations of our
different, separate groups are in opposition.
▪ Sarah is a 35-year-old marketing manager at a prominent advertising agency. She

is also a dedicated mother of two young children, aged 4 and 6.

▪ As a marketing manager, Sarah is expected to be highly committed to her job,

which often involves working late hours, attending client meetings, and staying
updated on industry trends. She's also expected to be accessible outside of regular
working hours to address client needs promptly.

▪ On the other hand, Sarah values her role as a mother and wants to be present for

her children's milestones, attend school events, and spend quality time with them.
NORMS
▪ Acceptable standards of behavior within a group that are shared by the
group’s members.

▪ Norms tell members what they ought and ought not to do under certain
circumstances.

▪ People belong to many groups whose norms vary and sometimes are
contradictory.
Punctuality: In a workplace setting, a group norm might be that everyone is expected to
arrive on time for meetings and appointments.

Active Listening: In a team or support group, a norm might be that members should
actively listen without interrupting when someone is speaking.

Confidentiality: In a therapy or support group, a norm is often that what is shared within
the group remains confidential.

Technology Usage: In a classroom or business meeting, there might be norms about

when and how technology (like smartphones or laptops) can be used to minimize
distractions.

Dress Code: In a professional setting, there could be norms about appropriate attire.
NORMS
▪ Identify 4 or 5 norms of a team that you are/were part of.

▪ Do these norms contradict? Will you conform to the norms of all the groups to

which you belong?

NORMS
▪ Imagine a teenager who is part of two different groups: her school friends and her

family.

▪ Her school friends are part of a subculture that values fashion, music, and a carefree

attitude. They often wear trendy clothing and listen to the latest pop music. She feels a
strong sense of belonging to this group and wants to fit in.

▪ On the other hand, the teenager’s family has a more traditional and conservative

outlook. They prioritize academic achievement, respect for authority, and modesty in
dress. Her parents and siblings have these values and expect her to follow suit.
WORKPLACE DEVIANCE BEHAVIOUR
Deviant workplace behavior (DWB), a voluntary behavior, refers to violation of
significant organizational norms

▪ Constructive deviance

Intentional behaviors that depart from the norms of a referent group in honorable
ways

“Behaviors that deviate from the norms of the reference group such that they benefit
the reference group”

eg: Creativity, extra-role behaviour, expressing voice

WORKPLACE DEVIANCE BEHAVIOUR
Destructive deviance

Violation of significant organizational norms which threatens the wellbeing of an

organization, its members, or both.

Category Examples
Production Leaving early, Intentionally working slowly,
Wasting resources
Property Sabotage, Stealing from the organization

Political Showing favoritism, Gossiping and spreading

rumors, Blaming coworkers
Personal aggression Sexual harassment, Verbal abuse
STATUS
▪ A socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others.

▪ Status is derived from one of three sources:

▪ The power a person has over others.

▪ A person’s ability to contribute to a group’s goals.

▪ An individual’s personal characteristics (intelligence, money, good looks or

friendly personality)
STATUS
▪ Status and Norms: High status individuals are more likely to deviate from norms
as they are better able to resist conformity pressures.

▪ Status and Group Interaction: High status people tend to be more assertive;
Lower status members tend to participate less actively in group discussions

▪ Status Inequity: Perceived inequity within groups creates disequilibrium and can
lead to resentment among those at the lower end of the status continuum.
GROUP SIZE
Group size affects the group’s overall behavior.
▪ Large groups are good for gaining diverse inputs

▪ Smaller groups are faster at completing tasks.

Social loafing: the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when
working collectively than alone.
GROUP COHESIVENESS
The degree to which group members are attracted to each other and are
motivated to stay in a group.

How to encourage group cohesiveness?

❖ Shrink the size of the group to encourage its members get to know each other and

can interact with each other.

❖ Increase the time the group spends together

❖ Help the group come to agreement around its goals.

DIVERSITY
The degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one
another.

▪ Increases group conflict, especially in the early stages of a group’s tenure.

▪ Culturally and demographically diverse groups may perform better over time, if
members can weather their differences.
GROUP THINK
▪ The tendency to bring individual thinking in line with the group’s thinking, in order

to gain consensus

▪ Individuals keep aside their personal opinions and decisions and accept the

group’s opinions and decisions

▪ Occurs when a group values solidarity so much that it fails to critically evaluate its

own decisions and assumptions.

▪ Group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual,

minority, or unpopular views

GROUP SHIFT
▪ In groups, people tend to be more extreme in their decisions.

▪ The shift can be towards either conservatism or greater risk.

▪ People who tend to take risky decisions will make riskier decisions in a group as

the risk is shared

▪ People who are conservative tend to make more conservative decisions in a group
▪ Imagine a group of coworkers in a marketing department who are tasked with

developing a new advertising campaign for their company's product. The team
members have different ideas about the direction the campaign should take. Some
believe that a conservative and straightforward approach will be most effective,
while others advocate for a more daring and unconventional strategy.

▪ As the group begins to discuss these ideas, they naturally divide into two

subgroups. The first subgroup, consisting of those who favor a conservative

approach, discusses the potential risks associated with unconventional advertising.
They express concerns about alienating the company's traditional customer base
and the potential backlash from conservative stakeholders.
▪ The second subgroup, comprising those who prefer a daring and unconventional

approach, talks about the potential rewards of breaking away from the traditional
marketing methods. They discuss how this approach can capture the attention of a
younger and more progressive audience and create buzz around the product.

▪ As the discussion unfolds, both subgroups reinforce their initial positions, with the

conservative subgroup becoming even more cautious in their recommendations,

and the unconventional subgroup becoming more enthusiastic about pushing
boundaries.
InnovateTech, a renowned technology company, embarked on "Project Alpha" with the
aim of developing a pioneering product in the fiercely competitive consumer
electronics market. The project was pivotal to the company's long-term growth, and a
diverse team was assembled to execute it. The team consisted of engineers, designers,
marketing experts, and financial analysts. Jane Mitchell, a seasoned executive known
for her successful track record, was appointed as the project leader.

As Project Alpha progressed, the team encountered a critical decision point related to
the product's design. The engineers were excited about implementing a cutting-edge,
untested technology that could potentially set the product apart in the market. However,
they voiced concerns about the technology's complexity, potential production delays,
and increased costs. On the other hand, the marketing and design teams were
enthusiastic about the technology's marketing appeal and believed it would position
the product as an industry leader.
During team meetings, a consensus emerged in favor of incorporating the untested
technology. Many team members highlighted the potential benefits while minimizing
the associated risks and challenges.

Jane Mitchell, the project leader, inadvertently discouraged dissenting opinions by

labeling those expressing reservations as "risk-averse" or "lacking innovation.“

Team members who initially had reservations felt compelled to align with the
prevailing sentiment to avoid conflict and maintain cohesion.

Over time, the team collectively became more optimistic about the technology's
feasibility and its potential to captivate customers. Initial concerns expressed by
the engineers began to fade as the group's enthusiasm grew. Team members who
initially had mild reservations started advocating strongly for the technology,
influenced by the group's prevailing sentiment.