eleventh edition

organizational

behavior

stephen p. robbins

12 / 10/ 2010 (5)

Defining and Classifying Grou s
Group( ) Two or more individuals interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives. Formal Group A designated work group defined by the organization s structure. Informal Group A group that is neither formally structured now organizationally determined; appears in response to the need for social contact.
8±1

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All right re erved.

All right re erved. 8±2 . Intere t Group Those working together to attain a specific objective with which each is concerned. Ta k Group Those working together to complete a job or task. Friend hip Group Those brought together because they share one or more common characteristics.Defining and Classifying Grou s (cont¶d) Command Group A group composed of the individuals who report directly to a given manager. © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc.

All right re erved.Why Peo le Join Grou s ‡ Security ‡ Statu ‡ Self-e teem ‡ Affiliation ‡ Power ‡ Goal Achievement E X H I B I T 8±1 © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. 8±3 .

Storming Stage The second stage in group development. characterized by intragroup conflict. © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. characterized by much uncertainty. characterized by close relationships and cohesiveness. Norming Stage The third stage in group development. 8±4 .The Five-Stage Model of Grou Develo ment Forming Stage The first stage in group development. All right re erved.

«Grou Develo ment (cont¶d) Performing Stage The fourth stage in group development. 8±5 . when the group is fully functional. characterized by concern with wrapping up activities rather than performance. Adjourning Stage The final stage in group development for temporary groups. All right re erved. © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc.

All right re erved. 8±6 .Stages of Grou Develo ment E X H I B I T 8±2 © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc.

Role Perception An individual s view of how he or she is supposed to act in a given situation. © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc.Roles (cont¶d) Role( ) A set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social unit. 8±7 . All right re erved. Role Identity Certain attitudes and behaviors consistent with a role.Grou Structure .

Role Conflict A situation in which an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations. All right re erved.Grou Structure . © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. 8±8 . P ychological Contract An unwritten agreement that sets out what management expects from the employee and vice versa.Roles (cont¶d) Role Expectation How others believe a person should act in a given situation.

Norms Norm Acceptable standards of behavior within a group that are shared by the group s members.Grou Structure . All right re erved. Cla e of Norm : ‡ Performance norm ‡ Appearance norm ‡ Social arrangement norm ‡ Allocation of re ource norm © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. 8±9 .

Group standards (norms) were highly effective in establishing individual worker output. © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. 8±10 .  Re earch Conclu ion : Worker behavior and sentiments were closely related.The Hawthorne Studies  A erie of tudie undertaken by Elton Mayo at We tern Electric Company¶ Hawthorne Work in Chicago between 1924 and 1932. Money was less a factor in determining worker output than were group standards. sentiments. Group influences (norms) were significant in affecting individual behavior. All right re erved. and security.

All right re erved. Reference Group Important groups to which individuals belong or hope to belong and with whose norms individuals are likely to conform. 8±11 .Grou Structure .Norms (cont¶d) Conformity Adjusting one s behavior to align with the norms of the group. © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. or both.Norms (cont¶d) Deviant Workplace Behavior Antisocial actions by organizational members that intentionally violate established norms and result in negative consequences for the organization.Grou Structure . 8±12 . All right re erved. its members.

All right re erved. Robinson. ³A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study. p. 565. Bennett.L.J. and R. April 1995.´ Academy of Management Journal. © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc.Typology of Deviant Workplace Behavior Category Production Example Leaving early Intentionally working slowly Wasting resources Sabotage Lying about hours worked Stealing from the organization Showing favoritism Gossiping and spreading rumors Blaming coworkers Sexual harassment Verbal abuse Stealing from coworkers E X H I B I T 8±5 8±13 Property Political Personal Aggression Source: Adapted from S. .

Group Structure . Group Norm Statu Equity Group Member Statu Culture © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc.Status Statu A socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others. All right re erved. 8±14 .

All right re erved. 8±15 . Performance Other conclu ion : ‡ Odd number group do better than even. Group Size © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc.Size Social Loafing The tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. ‡ Group of 7 or 9 perform better overall than larger or maller group .Group Structure .

hold a common attribute. and the impact of this attribute on turnover. race.Composition Group Demography The degree to which members of a group share a common demographic attribute. sex. © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. as part of a group.Group Structure . Cohort Individuals who. All right re erved. educational level. such as age. or length of service in the organization. 8±16 .

Phy ically i olate the group. Give reward to the group. : Make the group maller. Increa ing group cohe ivene 1. Increa e group tatu and admi ion difficultly. 2. 3. . 7.Group Structure . Increa e time member pend together. 4. 5. All right re erved. not individual . Stimulate competition with other group . Encourage agreement with group goal . 8±17 © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. 6.Cohesiveness Cohe ivene Degree to which group members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group.

All right re erved. and Productivity E X H I B I T 8±6 © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. Performance Norms. 8±18 .Relationship Between Group Cohesiveness.

© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. Simple. 8±19 . routine standardized tasks reduce the requirement that group processes be effective in order for the group to perform well. All right re erved. Smaller groups are better suited to coordinating and facilitating the implementation of complex tasks.Group Tasks  Deci ion-making Large groups facilitate the pooling of information about complex tasks.

8±20 .Group Decision Making  Strength More complete information Increased diversity of views Higher quality of decisions (more accuracy) Increased acceptance of solutions  Weakne e More time consuming (slower) Increased pressure to conform Domination by one or a few members Ambiguous responsibility © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. All right re erved.

All right re erved. © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. can be either toward conservatism or greater risk. Group hift A change in decision risk between the group s decision and the individual decision that member within the group would make.Group Decision Making (cont¶d) Groupthink Phenomenon in which the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative course of action. 8±21 .

8±22 . © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc.  There appear to be an illu ion of unanimity.  Member who have doubt or differing point of view keep ilent about mi giving . All right re erved.Symptoms Of The Groupthink Phenomenon  Group member rationalize any re i tance to the a umption they have made.  Member apply direct pre ure on tho e who expre doubt about hared view or who que tion the alternative favored by the majority.

Group Decision-Making Techniques Interacting Group Typical groups. Nominal Group Technique A group decision-making method in which individual members meet face-to-face to pool their judgments in a systematic but independent fashion. All right re erved. in which the members interact with each other face-to-face. 8±23 . © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc.

Group Decision-Making Techniques Brain torming An idea-generation process that specifically encourages any and all alternatives. 8±24 . All right re erved. allowing for anonymity of comments and aggregation of votes. © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. while withholding any criticism of those alternatives. Electronic Meeting A meeting in which members interact on computers.

8±25 . All right re erved.Evaluating Group Effectiveness TYPE OF GROUP Effectiveness Criteria Number and quality of ideas Social pressure Money costs Speed Task orientation Potential for interpersonal conflict Commitment to solution Development of group cohesiveness Interacting Low High Low Moderate Low High High High Brainstorming Moderate Low Low Moderate High Low Not applicable High Nominal High Moderate Low Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Electronic High Low High Moderate High Low Moderate Low E X H I B I T 8±8 © 2005 Prentice Hall Inc.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.