Chapter Review

Key Terms

Below is a list of some of the key terms you have learned about in this chapter.

Adjourning Groupthink Role conflict

Antisocial behaviour Hawthorne studies Role expectations

Appearance norms Informal groups Role identity

Brainstorming Interacting groups Role perception

Cohesiveness Interest group Roles

Command group Nominal group technique Social arrangement norms

Conformity Norming Social loafing

Deviant workplace behaviour Norms Solomon Asch

Electronic meeting Performance norms Status

Five-stage group development Performing Status characteristics theory

model

Formal groups Psychological contract Status inequity

Forming Punctuated-equilibrium model Storming

Friendship group Reference groups Task group

Group Resource allocation norms Workplace incivility

Groupshift

Summary

Behaviour is constrained by the context in which it occurs. Organizations form groups that determine
how employees behave, which may be very different than how they would behave individually.
Command and task groups, both formal, are organizationally determined, whereas friendship and
interest groups, both informal, are loosely banded collections of individuals sharing commonalities.

The five-stage group-development model suggests that groups form through the process of
forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. In the forming stage, there is a great deal of
uncertainty about the group’s purpose, structure, and leadership. In the second stage (storming),
there is considerable intragroup conflict. In the norming stage, close relationships develop and the
group demonstrates cohesiveness. The model assumes that groups become more effective as they
progress through the first four stages. Stage four (performing) is the stage where group performance
is the highest. For permanent work groups, performing is the last stage in development. However, for
temporary committees, teams, and task forces, there is an adjourning stage.

The punctuated-equilibrium model suggests that group progression is somewhat more erratic, in
that activity interspersed with periods of inertia and acceleration as the deadline looms closer. This
model characterizes groups as exhibiting long periods of inertia interspersed with brief revolutionary
changes triggered primarily by their members’ awareness of time and deadlines. This model is limited
to temporary task groups who are working under a time-constrained completion deadline.

Group concepts, such as roles, norms, status, size, and cohesiveness shape the behaviour of members
and explain and predict a large portion of individual behaviour within the group as well as the
performance of the group itself. Role identity, or attitudes and behaviours consistent with one’s group
position, are determined by role expectations (how others believe you should act in a given situation).
Individuals confronted with multiple divergent role expectations experience role conflict, which is
where compliance with one role requirement makes it difficult to fulfil another.

Norms are acceptable standards of behaviour that are shared by the group’s members. The
Hawthorne Studies provided valuable insight into the effect of norms on worker behaviour. Originally
initiated by Western Electric officials and later overseen by Harvard professor Elton Mayo, the
Hawthorne studies concluded that a worker’s behaviour and sentiments were closely related, that
group influences were significant in affecting individual behaviour, that group standards were highly
effective in establishing individual worker output, and that money was less factor in determining
worker output than were group standards, sentiments, and security. Most work groups establish a
variety of norms: performance (level of output and acceptably levels of tardiness), appearance
(appropriate dress and attitude), social arrangement (social interactions with group members), and
allocation of resources (pay, assignment of difficult jobs, and allocation of new tools and equipment).
Group members conform when they desire to be one of the group and avoid being visibly different.
Non-conformists are considered “deviant,” those who exhibit antisocial actions like stealing, loafing,
and abuse of other employees.

Status is a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others. Higher
status individuals are given more latitude in the range of acceptable behaviours. According to status
characteristics theory, status is derived from the power a person wields over others; a person’s ability
to contribute to a group’s goals; and an individual’s personal characteristics. High status individuals
are better able to resist conformity than low status individuals and are more likely to be assertive in a
group setting.

The size of a group also affects group behaviour. While large groups are more effective at gaining
diverse input, smaller groups tend to be more productive. One of the reasons for lack of productivity
in larger groups is the social loafing. Social loafing refers to the tendency of individuals to expend less
effort when working collectively than when working individually. For this reason, managers must
provide a mechanism to measure individual effort in group situations. In addition of overcoming the
productivity losses associated with group work, two other conclusions related to groups are presented:
(1) it is desirable to have an odd number of members in a group and (2) groups of five to seven
members tend to be ideal.

Finally, groups differ in cohesiveness, the degree to which members are attracted to each other and
are motivated to stay in the group. Cohesiveness is important because it has been found to be related
to the group’s productivity. Studies consistently show that the relationship of cohesiveness and
productivity depends on the performance-related norms established by the group.

Group decision making is characterized by both strengths and weaknesses. Groups generate more
complete information and knowledge, offer increased diversity of views, and increased acceptance of a
solution. The down sides include increased time to make decisions, conformity pressures, domination
by one or a few members, and ambiguous responsibility.

The effectiveness of groups is based on the criteria used to define effectiveness. In terms of
accuracy, 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 group member. In terms of
speed, individual decisions are preferable. If creativity or acceptance of the decision is important,
groups tend to be more effective than individuals.
Groupthink occurs when members rationalize any resistance and apply direct pressures on those who
momentarily express doubts. In addition, members who have doubts suppress their dissent and there
is an illusion of unanimity. It is more likely to occur 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 this positive image.

Groupshift refers to a group decision making phenomena. Group decisions tend to exaggerate the
initial position of the individual member and that shift is more often towards greater risk. Whether or
not the group will shift toward greater risk tends to be a function of the members’ pre-discussion
inclinations.

While the most common form of group decision making occurs in interacting groups, there are a
number of other techniques. Group decision making techniques include brainstorming, nominal
groups, and electronic meetings. They are an attempt to overcome pressures for conformity with face-
to-face interacting groups. Brainstorming utilizes an idea-generating process that encourages any and
all alternatives, while withholding any criticism of those alternatives. The nominal group technique
restricts discussion or interpersonal communication until all ideas have been presented. Ideas are
silently and independently ranked. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final
decision. A more recent type of group decision making technique is electronic decision making, where
up to 50 people sit around a horseshoe shoe table and contribute via computer input.