CHAPTER THREE

FOUNDATION OF GROUP BEHAVIOR

4.1. Defining and Classifying Groups

A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come
together to achieve particular objectives. Groups can be either formal or informal.
By formal groups, we mean those defined by the organization’s structure, with designated work
assignments establishing tasks. In formal groups, the behaviors that one should engage in are
stipulated by and directed toward organizational goals. The six members making up an airline
flight crew are an example of a formal group.
In contrast, informal groups are alliances that are neither formally structured nor
organizationally determined. These groups are natural formations in the work environment that
appear in response to the need for social contact. Three employees from different departments
who regularly eat lunch together are an example of an informal group.
It’s possible to sub classify groups as command, task, interest, or friendship groups. Command
and task groups are dictated by the formal organization, whereas interest and friendship groups
are informal alliances.
A command group is determined by the organization chart.
It is composed of the subordinates who report directly to a given manager. An elementary school
principal and her 12 teachers form a command group, as do the director of postal audits and his
five inspectors.
Task groups, also organizationally determined, represent those working together to complete a
job task. However, a task group’s boundaries are not limited to its immediate hierarchical
superior. It can cross command relationships. For instance, if a college student is accused of a
campus crime, it may require communication and coordination among the dean of academic
affairs, the dean of students, the registrar, the director of security, and the student’s advisor. Such
a formation would constitute a task group. It should be noted that all command groups are also
task groups, but because task groups can cut across the organization, the reverse need not be true.
People who may or may not be aligned into common command or task groups may affiliate to
attain a specific objective with which each is concerned. This is an interest group. Employees

1
who band together to have their vacation schedules altered, to support a peer who has been fired,
or to seek improved working conditions represent the formation of a united body to further their
common interest.
Groups often develop because the individual members have one or more common characteristics.
We call these formations friendship groups. Social alliances, which frequently extend out-side
the work situation, can be based on similar age or ethnic heritage, support for a Football club, or
the holding of similar political views, to name just a few such characteristics.
Informal groups provide a very important service by satisfying their members’ social needs.
Because of interactions that result from the close proximity of work stations or task interactions,
we find workers playing golf together, riding to and from work together, lunching together, and
spending their breaks around the water cooler together. We must recognize that these types of
interactions among individuals, even though informal, deeply affect their behavior and
performance.
There is no single reason why individuals join groups. Since most people belong to a number of
groups, it’s obvious that different groups provide different benefits to their members.

4.2. Why do People Join a Group?* * Quit Video Web Site

Security: By joining a group, individuals can reduce the insecurity of “standing alone.”
People feel stronger, have fewer self-doubts, and are more resistant to threats when they are
part of a group.
Status: Inclusion in a group that is viewed as important by others provides recognition and
status for its members.
Self-Esteem: Groups can provide people with feelings of self-worth. That is, in addition to
conveying status to those outside the group, membership can also give increased feelings of
worth to the group members themselves.
Affiliation: Groups can fulfill social needs. People enjoy the regular interaction that comes
with group membership. For many people, these on-the-job interactions are their primary
source for fulfilling their needs for affiliation.
Power: What cannot be achieved individually often becomes possible through group action.
There is power in numbers.

2
 Goal Achievement: There are times when it takes more than one person to accomplish a
particular task — there is a need to pool talents, knowledge, or power in order to complete a
job. In such instances, management will rely on the use of a formal group.

4.3. Stages of Group Development

For 30 years or more, we thought that most groups followed a specific sequence in their
evolution and we thought that we knew what that sequence was. But we were wrong. Recent
research indicates that there is no standardized pattern of group development. In this section, we
review the better-known five-stage model of group development.
 The Five-Stage Model
From the mid-1960s, it was believed that groups passed through a standard sequence of five
stages. Five stages have been labeled forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
Stage 1: Forming
The first stage, forming, is characterized by a great deal of uncertainty about the group’s
purpose, structure, and leadership.
Members are “testing the waters” to determine what types of behavior are acceptable. This stage
is complete when members have begun to think of themselves as part of a group.
Stage 2: Storming
The storming stage is one of intra group conflict. Members accept the existence of the group,
but there is resistance to the constraints that the group imposes on individuality. Furthermore,
there is conflict over who will control the group. When this stage is complete, there will be a
relatively clear hierarchy of leadership within the group.
Stage 3: Norming
The third stage is one in which close relationships develop and the group demonstrates
cohesiveness. There is now a strong sense of group identity and camaraderie. This norming
stage is complete when the group structure solidifies and the group has assimilated a common set
of expectations of what defines correct member behavior.
Stage 4: Performing
The fourth stage is performing. The structure at this point is fully functional and accepted.
Group energy has moved from getting to know and understand each other to performing the task
at hand.

3
Stage 5: Adjourning
For permanent work groups, performing is the last stage in their development. However, for
temporary committees, teams, task forces, and similar groups that have a limited task to perform,
there is an adjourning stage. In this stage, the group prepares for its disbandment.
High task performance is no longer the group’s top priority. Instead, attention is directed toward
wrapping up activities.
Responses of group members vary in this stage. Some are upbeat, basking in the group’s
accomplishments. Others may be depressed over the loss of camaraderie and friendships gained
during the work group’s life.
2.3.1 Key Points & Critique of Five-Stage Model
Many interpreters of the five-stage model have assumed that a group becomes more effective as
it progresses through the first four stages. While this assumption may be generally true, what
makes a group effective is more complex than this model acknowledges.
Under some conditions, high levels of conflict are conducive to high group performance. So we
might expect to find situations where groups in Stage II outperform those in Stages III or IV.
Similarly, groups do not always proceed clearly from one stage to the next. Sometimes, in fact,
several stages go on simultaneously, as when groups are storming and performing at the same
time. Groups even occasionally regress to previous stages. Therefore, even the strongest
proponents of this model do not assume that all groups follow its five-stage process precisely or
that Stage IV is always the most preferable.
Another problem with the five-stage model, in terms of understanding work-related behavior, is
that it ignores organizational context. For instance, a study of a cockpit crew in an airliner found
that, within ten minutes, three strangers assigned to fly together for the first time had become a
high-performing group. What allowed for this speedy group development was the strong
organizational context surrounding the tasks of the cockpit crew. This context provided the rules,
task definitions, information, and resources needed for the group to perform. They didn’t need to
develop plans, assign roles, determine and allocate resources, resolve conflicts, and set norms the
way the five-stage model predicts.

3.4 Work Group Behavior

4
We will focus here in this section is toward explaining work group behavior. Why are some
group efforts more successful than others? The answer to that question is complex, but it
includes variables such as the ability of the group’s members, the size of the group, the level of
conflict, and the internal pressures on members to conform to the group’s norms.
Work groups don’t exist in isolation. They are part of a larger organization. A research team in
Dow’s plastic products division, for instance, must live within the rules and policies dictated
from the division’s headquarters and Dow’s corporate offices. So every work group is influenced
by external conditions imposed from outside it.
The work group itself has a distinct set of resources determined by its membership. This includes
such things as intelligence and motivation of members. It also has an internal structure that
defines member roles and norms. These factors-group member resources and structure-determine
interaction patterns and other processes within the group. Finally, the group process-
performance/satisfaction relationship is moderated by the type of task that the group is working
on.

3.4.1 External Conditions Imposed on the Group

To begin understanding the behavior of a work group, you need to view it as a subsystem
embedded in a larger system. That is, when we realize that groups are a subset of a larger
organization system, we can extract part of the explanation of the group’s behavior from an
explanation of the organization to which it belongs.

5
Organization Strategy: An organization’s overall strategy, typically put into place by top
management, outlines the organization’s goals and the means for attaining these goals. It might,
for example, direct the organization toward reducing costs, improving quality, expanding market
share, or shrinking the size of its overall operations.
The strategy that an organization is pursuing, at any given time, will influence the power of
various work groups, which, in turn, will determine the resources that the organization’s top
management is willing to allocate to it for performing its tasks. To illustrate, an organization that
is retrenching through selling off or closing down major parts of its business is going to have
work groups with a shrinking resource base, increased member anxiety, and the potential for
heightened intra group conflict.
Authority Structures: Organizations have authority structures that define who reports to whom,
who makes decisions, and what decisions individuals or groups are empowered to make. This
structure typically determines where a given work group is placed in the organization’s
hierarchy, the formal leader of the group, and formal relationships between groups. So while a
work group might be led by someone who emerges informally from within the group, the
formally designated leader-appointed by management-has authority that others in the group don’t
have.
Formal Regulations: Organizations create rules, procedures, policies, job descriptions, and other
forms of regulations to standardize employee behavior. Because McDonald’s has standard
operating procedures for taking orders, cooking hamburgers, and filling soda containers, the
discretion of work group members to set independent standards of behavior is severely limited.
The more formal regulations that the organization imposes on all its employees, the more the
behavior of work group members will be consistent and predictable.
Organizational Resources: Some organizations are large and profitable, with an abundance of
resources. Their employees, for instance, will have modern, high-quality tools and equipment to
do their jobs. Other organizations aren’t as fortunate. When organizations have limited resources,
so do their work groups. What a group actually accomplishes is, to a large degree, determined by
what it is capable of accomplishing. The presence or absence of resources such as money, time,
raw materials, and equipment-which are allocated to the group by the organization-have a large
bearing on the group’s behavior.

6
Human Resource Selection Process: Members of any work group are, first, members of the
organization of which the group is a part. Members of a cost-reduction task force at Boeing first
had to be hired as employees of the company. So the criteria that an organization uses in its
selection process will determine the kinds of people that will be in its work groups.
Performance Evaluation and Reward System: Another organization wide variable that affects
all employees is the performance evaluation and reward system. Does the organization provide
employees with challenging, specific performance objectives? Does the organization reward the
accomplishment of individual or group objectives? Since work groups are part of the larger
organizational system, group members’ behavior will be influenced by how the organization
evaluates performance and what behaviors are rewarded.
Organizational Culture: Every organization has an unwritten culture that defines standards of
acceptable and unacceptable behavior for employees. After a few months, most employees
understand their organization’s culture.
They know things like how to dress for work, whether or not rules are rigidly enforced, and what
kinds of questionable behaviors are sure to get them into trouble and which are likely to be
overlooked, the importance of honesty and integrity, and the like. While many organizations
have subcultures-often created around work groups-with an additional or modified set of
standards, they still have a dominant culture that conveys to all employees those values the
organization holds dearest. Members of work groups have to accept the standards implied in the
organization’s dominant culture if they are to remain in good standing.
Physical Work Setting: Finally, we propose that the physical work setting that is imposed on the
group by external parties has an important bearing on work group behavior. Architects, industrial
engineers, and office designers make decisions regarding the size and physical layout of an
employee’s work space, the arrangement of equipment, illumination levels, and the need for
acoustics to cut down on noise distractions.
These create both barriers and opportunities for work group interaction. It’s obviously a lot
easier for employees to talk or “goof off” if their work stations are close together, there are no
physical barriers between them, and their supervisor is in an enclosed office 50 yards away.

3.4.2 Group Member Resources

7
A group’s potential level of performance is, to a large extent, dependent on the resources that its
members individually bring to the group. In this section, we want to look at two resources that
have received the greatest amount of attention: abilities and personality characteristics.
Abilities: Part of a group’s performance can be predicted by assessing the task-relevant and
intellectual abilities of its individual members. It’s true that we occasionally read about the
athletic team composed of mediocre players who, because of excellent coaching, determination,
and precision teamwork, beats a far more talented group of players. But such cases make the
news precisely because they represent an aberration. As the old saying goes, “The race doesn’t
always go to the swiftest or the battle to the strongest, but that’s the way to bet.” A group’s
performance is not merely the summation of its individual members’ abilities. However, these
abilities set parameters for what members can do and how effectively they will perform in a
group.
What predictions can we make regarding ability and group performance?
First, evidence indicates that individuals, who hold crucial abilities for attaining the group’s task
tend to be more involved in group activity, generally contribute more, are more likely to emerge
as the group leaders, and are more satisfied if their talents are effectively utilized by the group.
Second, intellectual ability and task-relevant ability have both been found to be related to over-
all group performance. However, the correlation is not particularly high, suggesting that other
factors, such as the size of the group, the type of tasks being performed, the actions of its leader,
and level of conflict within the group, also influence performance.
Personality Characteristics: There has been a great deal of research on the relationship between
personality traits and group attitudes and behavior. The general conclusion is that attributes that
tend to have a positive connotation in our culture tend to be positively related to group
productivity, morale, and cohesiveness. These include traits such as sociability, self-reliance, and
independence. In contrast, negatively evaluated characteristics such as authoritarianism,
dominance, and unconventionality tend to be negatively related to the dependent variables. These
personality traits affect group performance by strongly influencing how the individual will
interact with other group members.
Is anyone personality characteristic a good predictor of group behavior? The answer to that
question is “No.” The magnitude of the effect of any single characteristic is small, but taking

8
personality characteristics together, the consequences for group behavior are of major
significance.

3.4.3 Group Structure

Work groups are not unorganized. They have a structure that shapes the behavior of members
and makes it possible to explain and predict a large portion of individual behavior within the
group as well as the performance of the group itself. What are some of these structural variables?
They include formal leadership, roles, norms, group status, group size, composition of the group,
and the degree of group cohesiveness.

1. Formal Leadership
Almost every work group has a formal leader. He or she is typically identified by titles such as
unit or department manager, supervisor, foreman, project leader, task force head, or committee
chair. This leader can play an important part in the group’s success.

2. 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 a role. By this term, we mean a
set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given position in a social
unit. The understanding of role behavior would be dramatically simplified if each of us chose
one role and “played it out” regularly and consistently. Unfortunately, we are required to play a
number of diverse roles, both on and off our jobs. As we shall see, one of the tasks in
understanding behavior is grasping the role that a person is currently playing.
He has a number of roles that he fulfills on that job-for instance, Electrical Industries employee,
member of middle management, electrical engineer, and the primary company spokesperson in
the community. Off the job, Bill Patterson finds himself in still more roles: husband, father,
Catholic, Rotarian, tennis player, member of the Thunderbird Country Club, and president of his
homeowners’ association. Many of these roles are compatible; some create conflicts.
For instance, how does his religious involvement influence his managerial decisions regarding
layoffs, expense account padding, and providing accurate information to government agencies?

9
A recent offer of promotion requires Bill to relocate, yet his family very much wants to stay in
Phoenix. Can the role demands of his job be reconciled with the demands of his husband and
father roles?
The issue should be clear: Like Bill Patterson, we all are required to play a number of roles, and
our behavior varies with the role we are playing. Bill’s behavior when he attends church on
Sunday morning is different from his behavior on the golf course later that same day. So,
different groups impose different role requirements on individuals.
A. Role Identity
There are certain attitudes and actual behaviors consistent with a role, and they create the role
identity. People have the ability to shift roles rapidly when they recognize that the situation and
its demands clearly require major changes.
For instance, when union stewards were promoted to supervisory positions, it was found that
their attitudes changed from pro union to pro management within a few months of their
promotion. When these promotions had to be rescinded later because of economic difficulties in
the firm, it was found that the demoted supervisors had once again adopted their pro union
attitudes.

B. Role Perception
One’s view of how one is supposed to act in a given situation is a role perception. Based on an
interpretation of how we believe we are supposed to behave, we engage in certain types of
behavior.
Where do we get these perceptions? We get them from stimuli all around us-friends, books,
movies, television. For instance, the primary reason that apprenticeship programs exist in many
trades and professions is to allow beginners to watch an “expert,” so that they can learn to act as
they are supposed to.
C. Role Expectations
Role expectations are defined as how others believe you should act in a given situation. How
you behave is determined to a large extent by the role defined in the context in which you are
acting. For instance the role of a U.S. senator is viewed as having propriety and dignity, whereas

10
a football coach is seen as aggressive, dynamic, and inspiring to his players. In the same context,
we might be surprised to learn that the neighborhood priest moon-lights during the week as a
bartender because our role expectations of priests and bartenders tend to be considerably
different. When role expectations are concentrated into generalized categories, we have role
stereotypes.
In the workplace, it can be helpful to look at the topic of role expectations through the
perspective of the psychological contract.
There is an unwritten agreement that exists between employees and their employer. This
psychological contract sets out mutual expectations-what management expects from workers,
and vice versa. In effect, this contract defines the behavioral expectations that go with every role.
Management 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 the employee is
doing. Employees are expected to respond by demonstrating a good attitude, following
directions, and showing loyalty to the organization.
What happens when role expectations as implied in the psychological contract are not met? If
management is derelict in keeping up its part of the bargain, we can expect negative
repercussions on employee performance and satisfaction. When employees fail to live up to
expectations, the result is usually some form of disciplinary action up to and including firing.
The psychological contract should be recognized as a “powerful determiner of behavior in
organizations.” It points out the importance of accurately communicating role expectations.

D. Role Conflict
When an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations, the result is role conflict. It
exists when an individual finds that compliance with one role requirement may make more
difficult the compliance with another. At the extreme, it would include situations in which two or
more role expectations are mutually contradictory.
Our previous discussion of the many roles Bill Patterson had to deal with included several role
conflicts-for instance, Bill’s attempt to reconcile the expectations placed on him as a husband
and father with those placed on him as an executive with Electrical Industries. The former, as
you will remember, emphasizes stability and concern for the desire of his wife and children to

11
remain in Phoenix. Electrical Industries, on the other hand, expects its employees to be
responsive to the needs and requirements of the company.

3. Norms
Did you ever notice that employees don’t criticize their bosses in public? Why? The answer is:
“Norms!”
All groups have established norms, that is, acceptable standards of behavior that are shared by
the group’s members. Norms tell members what they ought and ought not to do under certain
circumstances.
From an individual’s standpoint, they tell what is expected of you in certain situations. When
agreed to and accepted by the group, norms act as a means of influencing the behavior of group
members with a minimum of external controls. Norms differ among groups, communities, and
societies, but they all have them.
Formalized norms are written up in organizational manuals setting out rules and procedures for
employees to follow. By far, the majority of norms in organizations are informal. You don’t need
someone to tell you that throwing paper airplanes or engaging in prolonged gossip sessions at the
water cooler are unacceptable behaviors when the “big boss from head office” is touring the
office.
But groups don’t establish or enforce norms for every conceivable situation. The norms that the
group will enforce tend to be those that are important to it. But what makes a norm important?

(1) If it facilitates the group’s survival. Groups don’t like to fail, so they look to enforce those
norms that increase their chances for success. This means that they’ll try to protect themselves
from interference from other groups or individuals.

(2) If it increases the predictability of group members’ behaviors. Norms that increase
predictability enable group members to anticipate each other’s actions and to prepare appropriate
responses.

(3) If it reduces embarrassing interpersonal problems for group members. Norms are important if
they ensure the satisfaction of their members and prevent as much interpersonal discomfort as
possible.

12
(4) If it allows members to express the central values of the group and clarify what is distinctive
about the group’s identity. Norms that encourage expression of the group’s values and distinctive
identity help to solidify and maintain the group.

Conformity As a member of a group, you desire acceptance by the group. Because of your desire
for acceptance, you are susceptible to conforming to the group’s norms. There is considerable
evidence that groups can place strong pressures on individual members to change their attitudes
and behaviors to conform to the group’s standard.

Do individuals conform to the pressures of all the groups to which they belong? Obviously not,
because people belong to many groups and their norms vary. In some cases, they may even have
contradictory norms. So what do people do? They conform to the important groups to which they
belong or hope to belong. The important groups have been referred to as reference groups and
are characterized as ones where the person is aware of the others; the person defines himself or
herself as a member, or would like to be a member; and the person feels that the group members
are significant to him or her. The implication, then, is that all groups do not impose equal
conformity pressures on their members.

The impact that group pressures for conformity can have on an individual member’s judgment
and attitudes was demonstrated in the now-classic studies by Solomon Asch. The results suggest
that there are group norms that press us toward conformity. We desire to be one of the group and
avoid being visibly different. We can generalize further to say that when an individual’s opinion
of objective data differs significantly from that of others in the group; he or she is likely to feel
extensive pressure to align his or her opinions to conform to those of the others.

4. Status
While teaching a college course on adolescence, the instructor asked the class to list things that
contributed to status when they were in high school. The list was long and included being an
athlete or a cheerleader and being able to cut class without getting caught. Then the instructor
asked the students to list things that didn’t contribute to status. Again, it was easy for the students
13
to create a long list: getting straight A’s, having your mother drive you to school, and so forth.
Finally, the students were asked to develop a third list-those things that didn’t matter one way or
the other. There was a long silence. At last one student in the back row volunteered, “In high
school, nothing didn’t matter.”
Status is a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others. It
would not be extravagant to rephrase the preceding quotation to read, “In the status hierarchy of
life, nothing doesn’t matter.” We live in a class-structured society.
Despite all attempts to make it more egalitarian, we have made little progress toward a classless
society. Even the smallest group will develop roles, rights, and rituals to differentiate its
members. Status is an important factor in understanding human behavior because it is a
significant motivator and has major behavioral consequences when individuals perceive a
disparity between what they believe their status to be and what others perceive it to be.
Status and Norms: Status has been shown to have some interesting effects on the power of
norms and pressures to conform. For instance, high-status members of groups often are given
more freedom to deviate from norms than are other group members. High-status people also are
better able to resist conformity pressures than their lower-status peers. An individual who is
highly valued by a group but who doesn’t much need or care about the social rewards the group
provides is particularly able to pay minimal attention to conformity norms.
The previous findings explain why many star athletes, famous actors, top-performing
salespeople, and outstanding academics seem oblivious to appearance or social norms that
constrain their peers. As high-status individuals, they’re given a wider range of discretion. But
this is true only as long as the high-status person’s activities aren’t severely detrimental to group
goal achievement.
Status Equity: It is important for group members to believe that the status hierarchy is equitable.
When inequity is perceived, it creates disequilibrium that results in various types of corrective
behavior.
People expect rewards to be proportionate to costs incurred. For instance, if Dana and Anne are
the two finalists for the head nurse position in a hospital, and it is clear that Dana has more
seniority and better preparation for assuming the promotion, Anne will view the selection of
Dana to be equitable. However, if Anne is chosen because she is the daughter-in-law of the
hospital director, Dana will believe an injustice has been committed.

14
The trappings that go with formal positions are also important elements in maintaining equity.
When we believe there is an inequity between the perceived ranking of an individual and the
status accouterments that person is given by the organization, we are experiencing status
incongruence. Examples of this kind of incongruence are the more desirable office location being
held by a lower-ranking individual and paid country club membership being provided by the
company for division managers but not for vice presidents. Pay incongruence has long been a
problem in the insurance industry, where top sales agents often earn two to five times more than
senior corporate executives. The result is that it is very hard for insurance companies to entice
successful agents into management positions. Our point is that employees expect the things an
individual has and receives to be congruent with his or her status.
Groups generally agree within themselves on status criteria and, hence, there is usually high
concurrence in group rankings of individuals. However, individuals can find themselves in a
conflict situation when they move between groups whose status criteria are different or when
they join groups whose members have heterogeneous backgrounds. For instance, 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. Professional employees may
use the degree of autonomy that comes with their job assignment. Blue-collar workers may use
years of seniority. In groups made up of heterogeneous individuals or when heterogeneous
groups are forced to be interdependent, status differences may initiate conflict as the group
attempts to reconcile and align the differing hierarchies. This can be a particular problem when
management creates teams made up of employees from across varied functions within the
organization.

5. Size
Does the size of a group affect the group’s overall behavior? The answer to this question is a
definite “Yes,” but the effect depends on what dependent variables you look at. The evidence
indicates, for instance, that smaller groups are faster at completing tasks than are larger ones.
However, if the group is engaged in problem solving, large groups consistently get better marks
than their smaller counterparts. Translating these results into specific numbers is a bit more
hazardous, but we can offer some parameters.

15
Large groups-with a dozen or more members-are good for gaining diverse input. So if the goal of
the group is fact finding, larger groups should be more effective. On the other hand, smaller
groups are better at doing something productive with that input. Groups of approximately seven
members, therefore, tend to be more effective for taking action. One of the most important
findings related to the size of a group has been labeled social loafing. Social loafing is the
tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working
individually. It directly challenges the logic that the productivity of the group as a whole should
at least equal the sum of the productivity of each individual in that group.
A common stereotype about groups is that the sense of team spirit spurs individual effort and
enhances the group’s overall productivity.
In the late 1920s, a German psychologist named Ringelmann compared the results of individual
and group performance on a rope-pulling task. He expected that the group’s effort would be
equal to the sum of the efforts of individuals within the group. That is, three people pulling
together should exert three times as much pull on the rope as one person, and eight people should
exert eight times as much pull. Ringelmann’s results, however, did not confirm his expectations.
Groups of three people exerted a force only two-and-a-half times the average individual
performance. Groups of eight collectively achieved less than four times the solo rate.
Replications of Ringelmann’s research with similar tasks have generally supported his findings.
Increases in group size are inversely related to individual performance. More may be better in the
sense that the total productivity of a group of four is greater than that of one or two people, but
the individual productivity of each group member declines.
What causes this social loafing effect? It may be due to a belief that others in the group are not
carrying their fair share. If you see others as lazy or inept, you can reestablish equity by reducing
your effort. Another explanation is the dispersion of responsibility.
Because the results of the group cannot be attributed to any single person, the relationship
between an individual’s input and the group’s output is clouded. In such situations, individuals
may be tempted to become “free riders” and cost on the group’s efforts. In other words, there
will be a reduction in efficiency where individuals think that their contribution cannot be
measured. The implications for OB of this effect on work groups are significant.
Where managers utilize collective work situations to enhance morale and teamwork, they must
also provide means by which individual efforts can be identified. If this is not done, management

16
must weigh the potential losses in productivity from using groups against any possible gains in
worker satisfaction. However, this conclusion has a Western bias. It’s consistent with
individualistic cultures, like the United States and Canada that are dominated by self-interest. It
is not consistent with collective societies where individuals are motivated by in- group goals. For
instance, in studies comparing employees from the United States with employees from the
People’s Republic of China and Israel (both collectivist societies), the Chinese and Israelis
showed no propensity to engage in social loafing. In fact, the Chinese and Israelis actually
performed better in a group than when working alone.
The research on group size leads us to two additional conclusions:
(1) Groups with an odd number of members tend to be preferable to those with an even number;
and (2) groups made up of five or seven members do a pretty good job of exercising the best
elements of both small and large groups. Having an odd number of members eliminates the
possibility of ties when votes are taken.
And groups made up of five or seven members are large enough to form a majority and allow for
diverse input, yet small enough to avoid the negative outcomes often associated with large
groups, such as domination by a few members, development of subgroups, inhibited
participation by some members, and excessive time taken to reach a decision.

6. Composition
Most group activities require a variety of skills and knowledge. Given this requirement, it would
be reasonable to conclude that heterogeneous groups-those composed of dissimilar individuals-
would be more likely to have diverse abilities and information and should be more effective.
Research studies generally substantiate this conclusion.
When a group is heterogeneous in terms of gender, personalities, opinions, abilities, skills, and
perspectives, there is an increased probability that the group will possess the needed
characteristics to complete its tasks effectively. The group may be more conflict laden and less
expedient as diverse positions are introduced and assimilated, but the evidence generally
supports the conclusion that heterogeneous groups perform more effectively than do those that
are homogeneous.
But what about diversity created by racial or national differences?

17
The evidence indicates that these elements of diversity interfere with group processes, at least in
the short term. Cultural diversity seems to be an asset on tasks that call for a variety of view-
points.
But culturally heterogeneous groups have more difficulty in learning to work with each other and
solving problems. The good news is that these difficulties seem to dissipate with time. While
newly formed culturally diverse groups underperform newly formed culturally homogeneous
groups, the differences disappear after about three months. The reason is that it takes diverse
groups a while to learn how to work through disagreements and different approaches to solving
problems.
An offshoot of the composition issue has recently received a great deal of attention by group
researchers. This is the degree to which members of a group share a common demographic
attribute, such as age, sex, race, educational level, or length of service in the organization, and
the impact of this attribute on turnover. We call this variable group demography.
Groups and organizations are composed of cohorts, which we define as individuals who hold a
common attribute. For instance, everyone born in 1960 is of the same age. This means they also
have shared common experiences. People born in 1970 have experienced the information
revolution, but not the Korean conflict. People born in 1945 shared the Vietnam War, but not the
Great Depression. Women in U.S. organizations today who were born before 1945 matured prior
to the women’s movement and have had substantially different experiences from women born
after 1960.
Group demography, therefore, suggests that such attributes as age or the date that someone joins
a specific work group or organization should help us to predict turnover. Essentially, the logic
goes like this: Turnover will be greater among those with dissimilar experiences because
communication is more difficult. Conflict and power struggles are more likely and more severe
when they occur.
The increased conflict makes group membership less attractive, so employees are more likely to
quit. Similarly, the losers in a power struggle are more apt to leave voluntarily or be forced out.
Several studies have sought to test this thesis, and the evidence is quite encouraging.48 For
example, in departments or separate work groups where a large portion of members entered at
the same time, there is considerably more turnover among those outside this cohort. Also, where
there are large gaps between cohorts, turnover is higher. People, who enter a group or an

18
organization together, or at approximately the same time, are more likely to associate with one
another, have a similar perspective on the group or organization, and thus be more likely to stay.
On the other hand, discontinuities or bulges in the group’s date-of-entry distribution are likely to
result in a higher turnover rate within that group.
The implication of this line of inquiry is that the composition of a group may be an important
predictor of turnover. Differences per sex may not predict turnover. But large differences within
a single group will lead to turnover. If everyone is moderately dissimilar from everyone else in a
group, the feelings of being an outsider are reduced. So, it’s the degree of dispersion on an
attribute, rather than the level, that matters most. We can speculate that variance within a group
in respect to attributes other than date of entry, such as social background, gender differences,
and levels of education, might similarly create discontinuities or bulges in the distribution that
will encourage some members to leave. To extend this idea further, the fact that a group member
is a female may, in itself, mean little in predicting turnover.
In fact, if the work group is made up of nine women and one man, we’d be more likely to predict
that the lone male would leave. In the executive ranks of organizations, however, where females
are in the minority, we would predict that this minority status would increase the likelihood that
female managers would quit.

7. Cohesiveness
Groups differ in their cohesiveness, that is, the degree to which members are attracted to each
other and are motivated to stay in the group. For instance, some work groups are cohesive
because the members have spent a great deal of time together, or the group’s small size
facilitates high interaction, or the group has experienced external threats that have brought
members close together.
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. If performance related norms are high (for
example, high output, quality work, cooperation with individuals outside the group), a cohesive
group will be more productive than will 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

19
situation. Where cohesiveness and performance- related norms are both low, productivity will
tend to fall into the low-to-moderate range.

What can you do to encourage group cohesiveness? You might try one or more of the following
suggestions:
Make the group smaller.
Encourage agreement with group goals.
Increase the time members spend together.
Increase the status of the group and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership in
the group.
Stimulate competition with other groups.
Give rewards to the group rather than to members.
Physically isolate the group.

3.4.4 Group Processes

The next component of our group behavior model considers the processes that go on within a
work group the communication patterns used by members for information exchanges, group
decision processes, leader behavior, power dynamics, conflict interactions, and the like.
Why are processes important to understanding work group behavior? One way to answer this
question is to return to the topic of social loafing. We found that 1+1+1 doesn’t necessarily add
up to three. In group tasks where each member’s contribution is not clearly visible, there is a
tendency for individuals to decrease their effort. Social loafing, in other words, illustrates a
process loss as a result of using groups. But group processes can also produce positive results.

20
That is, groups can create outputs greater than the sum of their inputs. Exhibit 7-8 illustrates how
group processes can impact on a group’s actual effectiveness.

Synergy is a term used in biology that refers to an action of two or more substances that result in
an effect that is different from the individual summation of the substances. We can use the
concept to better understand group processes.
Social loafing, for instance, represents negative synergy. The whole is less than the sum of its
parts. On the other hand, research teams are often used in research laboratories because they can
draw on the diverse skills of various individuals to produce more meaningful research as a group
than could be generated by all of the researchers working independently. That is, they produce
positive synergy. Their process gains exceed their process losses.
Another line of research that helps us to better understand group processes is the social
facilitation effect. Have you ever noticed that performing a task in front of others can have a
positive or negative effect on your performance? For instance, you privately practice a complex
springboard dive at your home pool for weeks. Then you do the dive in front of a group of
friends and you do it better than ever. Or you practice a speech in private and finally get it down
perfect, but you “bomb” when you have to give the speech in public.

The social facilitation effect refers to this tendency for performance to improve or decline in
response to the presence of others. While this effect is not entirely a group phenomenon-people
can work in the presence of others and not be members of a group-the group situation is more
likely to provide the conditions for social facilitation to occur.

The research on social facilitation tells us that the performance of simple, routine tasks tend to be
speeded up and made more accurate by the presence of others.

Where the work is more complex, requiring closer attention, the presence of others is likely to
have a negative effect on performance. So what are the implications of this research in terms of

21
managing process gains and losses? The implications relate to learning and training. People seem
to perform better on a task in the presence of others if that task is very well learned, but poorer if
it is not well learned. So process gains will be maximized by training people for simple tasks in
groups, while training people for complex tasks in individual private practice sessions.

3.4.5 Group Tasks

Imagine, for a moment, that there are two groups at a major oil company. The job of the first is
to consider possible location sites for a new refinery. The decision is going to affect people in
many areas of the company production, engineering, marketing, distribution, purchasing, real
estate development, and the like so key people from each of these areas will need to provide
input into the decision. The job of the second group is to coordinate the building of the refinery
after the site has been selected, the design finalized, and the financial arrangements completed.
Research on group effectiveness tells us that management would be well advised to use a larger
group for the first task than for the second. The reason is that large groups facilitate pooling of
information. The addition of a diverse perspective to a problem-solving committee typically
results in a process gain. But when a group’s task is coordinating and implementing a decision,
the process loss created by each additional member’s presence is likely to be greater than the
process gain he or she makes. So the size-performance relationship is moderated by the group’s
task requirements.

The preceding conclusions can be extended: The impact of group processes on the group’s
performance and member satisfaction is also moderated by the tasks that the group is doing. The
evidence indicates that the complexity and interdependence of tasks influence the group’s
effectiveness.

Tasks can be generalized as either simple or complex. Complex tasks are ones that tend to be
novel or non routine. Simple ones are routine and standardized. We would hypothesize that the
more complex the task, the more the group will benefit from discussion among members on
alternative work methods. If the task is simple, group members don’t need to discuss such
alternatives. They can rely on standardized operating procedures for doing the job.

22
Similarly, if there is a high degree of interdependence among the tasks that group members must
perform, they’ll need to interact more. Effective communication and minimal levels of conflict,
therefore, should be more relevant to group performance when tasks are interdependent.

These conclusions are consistent with what we know about information-processing capacity and
uncertainty. Tasks that have higher uncertainty those that are complex and interdependent
require more information processing. This, in turn, puts more importance on group processes. So
just because a group is characterized by poor communication, weak leadership, high levels of
conflict, and the like, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be low performing. If the group’s
tasks are simple and require little inter-dependence among members, the group still may be
effective.

3.5 Group Decision Making

The belief characterized by juries that two heads are better than one has long been accepted as a
basic component of North American and many other countries’ legal systems. This belief has
expanded to the point that, today, many decisions in organizations are made by groups, teams, or
committees. In this section, we want to review group decision making.

Groups vs. the Individual Decision Making

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

Strengths Of Group Decision Making

Groups generate more complete information and knowledge. By aggregating the resources of
several individuals, groups bring more input into the decision process. In addition to more input,
groups can bring heterogeneity to the decision process. They offer increased diversity of views.
This opens up the opportunity for more approaches and alternatives to be considered. The
evidence indicates that a group will almost always outperform even the best individual. So
23
groups generate higher-quality decisions. Finally, groups lead to increased acceptance of a
solution. Many decisions fail after the final choice is made because people don’t accept the
solution. Group members who participated in making a decision are likely to enthusiastically
support the decision and encourage others to accept it.

Weaknesses of Group Decision Making

In spite of the pluses noted, group decisions have their drawbacks. They’re time consuming.
They typically take more time to reach a solution than would be the case if an individual were
making the decision alone. There are conformity pressures in groups. The desire by group
members to be accepted and considered an asset to the group can result in squashing any overt
disagreement. Group discussion can be dominated by one or a few members. If this dominant
coalition is com-posed of 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 watered down.

Effectiveness and Efficiency

Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on the criteria you use for defining
effectiveness. In terms of accuracy, group decisions will tend to be more accurate. The evidence
indicates that, on the average, groups make better-quality decisions than individuals. However, if
decision effectiveness is defined in terms of speed, individuals are superior. If creativity is
important, groups tend to be more effective than individuals. And if effectiveness means the
degree of acceptance the final solution achieves, the nod again goes to the group. But
effectiveness cannot be considered without also assessing efficiency. In terms of efficiency,
groups almost always stack up as a poor second to the individual decision maker. With few
exceptions, group decision making consumes more work hours than if an individual were to
tackle the same problem alone. The exceptions tend to be those instances where, to achieve
comparable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time
reviewing files and talking to people. Because groups can include members from diverse areas,
the time spent searching for information can be reduced. However, as we noted, these advantages
in efficiency tend to be the exception. Groups are generally less efficient than individuals. In

24
deciding whether to use groups, then, consideration should be given to assessing whether
increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the losses in efficiency.

In summary, groups offer an excellent vehicle for performing many of the steps in the decision-
making process. They are a source of both breadth and depth of input for information gathering.
If the group is composed of individuals with diverse backgrounds, the alternatives generated
should be more extensive and the analysis more critical. When the final solution is agreed upon,
there are more people in a group decision to support and implement it. These pluses, however,
can be more than offset by the time consumed by group decisions, the internal conflicts they
create, and the pressures they generate toward conformity.

Groupthink and Groupshift

Two by-products of group decision making have received a considerable amount of attention by
researchers in OB. As we’ll show, these two phenomena have the potential to affect the group’s
ability to appraise alternatives objectively and arrive at quality decision solutions.

The first phenomenon, called groupthink, is related to norms. It describes situations in which
group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or
unpopular views. Groupthink is a disease that attacks many groups and can dramatically hinder
their performance.

The second phenomenon we shall review is called groupshift. It indicates that in discussing a
given set of alternatives and arriving at a solution, group members tend to exaggerate the initial
positions that they hold. In some situations, caution dominates, and there is a conservative shift.
More often, however, the evidence indicates that groups tend toward a risky shift.

Have you ever felt like speaking up in a meeting, classroom, or informal group, but decided
against it? One reason may have been shyness. On the other hand, you may have been a victim of
group-think, the phenomenon that occurs when group members become so enamored of seeking
concurrence that the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of
action and the full expression of deviant, minority, or unpopular views. It describes a
deterioration in an individual’s mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment as a result
of group pressures.

25
We have all seen the symptoms of the groupthink phenomenon:

1. Group members rationalize any resistance to the assumptions they have made. No matter how
strongly the evidence may contradict their basic assumptions, members behave so as to reinforce
those assumptions continually.

2. Members apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express doubts about any of the
group’s shared views or who question the validity of arguments supporting the alternative
favored by the majority.

3. Those members who have doubts or hold differing points of view seek to avoid deviating from
what appears to be group consensus by keeping silent about misgivings and even minimizing to
themselves the importance of their doubts.

4. There appears to be an illusion of unanimity. If someone doesn’t speak, it’s assumed that he or
she is in full accord. In other words, abstention becomes viewed as a “Yes” vote.

Are all groups equally vulnerable to groupthink? The evidence suggests not. Researchers have
focused on three moderating variables the group’s cohesiveness, its leader’s behavior, and its
insulation from outsiders but the findings have not been consistent.

At this point, the most valid conclusions we can make are: (1) highly cohesive groups have more
discussion and bring out more information, but it’s unclear whether or not such groups
discourage dissent; (2) groups with impartial leaders who encourage member input generate and
discuss more alternative solutions; (3) leaders should avoid expressing a preferred solution early
in the group’s discussion because this tends to limit critical analysis and significantly increase
the likelihood that the group will adopt this solution as the final choice; and (4) insulation of the
group leads to fewer alternatives being generated and evaluated.

GROUPSHIFT In comparing group decisions with the individual decisions of members within
the group, evidence suggests that there are differences.

In some cases, the group decisions are more conservative than the individual decisions. More
often, the shift is toward greater risk.

26
What appears to happen in groups is that the discussion leads to a significant shift in the
positions of members toward a more extreme position in the direction in which they were already
leaning before the discussion. So conservative types become more cautious and the more
aggressive types take on more risk. The group discussion tends to exaggerate the initial position
of the group.

The groupshift can be viewed as actually a special case of group-think. The decision of the group
reflects the dominant decision-making norm that develops during the group’s discussion.
Whether the shift in the group’s decision is toward greater caution or more risk depends on the
dominant pre discussion norm.

The greater occurrence of the shift toward risk has generated several explanations for the
phenomenon.

It’s been argued, for instance, that the discussion creates familiarization among the members. As
they become more comfortable with each other, they also become more bold and daring. Another
argument is that our society values risk, that we admire individuals who are willing to take risks,
and that group discussion motivates members to show that they are at least as willing as their
peers to take risks. The most plausible explanation of the shift toward risk, however, seems to be
that the group diffuses responsibility. Group decisions free any single member from
accountability for the group’s final choice.

Greater risk can be taken because even if the decision fails, no one member can be held wholly
responsible.

So how should you use the findings on groupshift? You should recognize that group decisions
exaggerate the initial position of the individual members that the shift has been shown more
often to be toward greater risk and that whether or not a group will shift toward greater risk or
caution is a function of the members’ pre discussion inclinations.

3.6 Summary and Implications for Managers

27
We’ve covered a lot of territory in this chapter. Since we essentially organized our discussion
around the group behavior model, let’s use this model to summarize our findings regarding
performance and satisfaction.
3.7.1 Performance
Any predictions about a group’s performance must begin by recognizing that work groups are
part of a larger organization and that factor such as the organization’s strategy, authority
structure, selection procedures, and reward system can provide a favorable or unfavorable
climate for the group to operate within. For example, if an organization is characterized by
distrust between management and workers, it is more likely that work groups in that organization
will develop norms to restrict effort and output than will work groups in an organization where
trust is high. So managers shouldn’t look at any group in isolation. Rather, they should begin by
assessing the degree of support external conditions provide the group. It is obviously a lot easier
for any work group to be productive when the overall organization of which it is a part is
growing and it has both top management’s support and abundant resources. Similarly, a group is
more likely to be productive when its members have the requisite skills to do the group’s tasks
and the personality characteristics that facilitate working well together.
A number of structural factors show a relationship to performance.
Among the more prominent are role perception, norms, status inequities, and the size of the
group, its demographic makeup, the group’s task, and cohesiveness.
There is a positive relationship between role perception and an employee’s performance
evaluation. The degree of congruence that exists between an employee and his or her boss in the
perception of the employee’s job influences the degree to which that employee will be judged as
an effective performer by the boss. To the extent that the employee’s role perception fulfills the
boss’s role expectations, the employee will receive a higher performance evaluation.
Norms control group member behavior by establishing standards of right and wrong. If managers
know the norms of a given group, it can help to explain the behaviors of its members. Where
norms support high output, managers can expect individual performance to be markedly higher
than where group norms aim to restrict output. Similarly, acceptable standards of absenteeism
will be dictated by the group norms.
Status inequities create frustration and can adversely influence productivity and the willingness
to remain with an organization.

28
Among those individuals who are equity sensitive, incongruence is likely to lead to reduced
motivation and an increased search for ways to bring about fairness (i.e., taking another job).
The impact of size on a group’s performance depends upon the type of task in which the group is
engaged. Larger groups are more effective at fact-finding activities. Smaller groups are more
effective at action-taking tasks. Our knowledge of social loafing suggests that if management
uses larger groups, efforts should be made to provide measures of individual performance within
the group.
We found the group’s demographic composition to be a key determinant of individual turnover.
Specifically, the evidence indicates that group members who share a common age or date of
entry into the work group are less prone to resign.
We also found that cohesiveness can play an important function in influencing a group’s level of
productivity. Whether or not it does depends on the group’s performance-related norms. The
primary contingency variable moderating the relationship between group processes and
performance is the group’s task. The more complex and interdependent the tasks, the more that
inefficient processes will lead to reduced group performance.
3.7.2 Satisfaction
As with the role perception–performance relationship, high congruence between a boss and
employee, as to the perception of the employee’s job, shows a significant association with high
employee satisfaction. Similarly, role conflict is associated with job-induced tension and job
dissatisfaction. Most people prefer to communicate with others at their own status level or a
higher one rather than with those below them. As a result, we should expect satisfaction to be
greater among employees whose job minimizes interaction with individuals who are lower in
status than themselves. The group size-satisfaction relationship is what one would intuitively
expect: Larger groups are associated with lower satisfaction. As size increases, opportunities for
participation and social interaction decrease, as does the ability of members to identify with the
group’s accomplishments. At the same time, having more members also prompts dissension,
conflict, and the formation of subgroups which all act to make the group a less pleasant entity of
which to be a part.

29