174 Part 3 • Communicating in Groups and Teams

GROUP STATUS Early in life, we acquire an “us and them” mentality.83 Culturally,
sometimes ingroups represent the dominant forces in a society and are given high status,
which can create discrimination against their outgroups. Low-status groups, perhaps in
response to this discrimination, are likely to leverage ingroup favoritism to compete for
higher status.84 When high-status groups then feel the discrimination from low-status
groups, they may increase their bias against the outgroups.85 With each cycle, the groups
become more polarized.

Group Property 4: Size and Dynamics

Does the size of a group affect the group’s overall behavior? Yes, but the effect depends
on the outcomes we are interested in.86 Groups with a dozen or more members are good
for gaining diverse input.87 If the goal is fact-finding or idea-generating, then larger
groups should be more effective.88 Smaller groups of about seven members are better at
doing something productive.89 We even hold group size stereotypes that affect our behav-
iors (e.g., smaller groups are more trustworthy, larger groups are more difficult to help).90
Social loafing Group dynamics are also important for characterizing groups. One of the most
The tendency for important findings concerning group dynamics involves social loafing, the tendency for
individuals to expend
individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when alone.91 Social
less effort when
working collectively loafing directly challenges the assumption that the productivity of the group as a whole
than when working should at least equal the sum of the productivity of the individuals in it, no matter what
individually. the group size.
Social loafing appears to have a Western bias.92 It is consistent with individualis-
tic cultures, such as those found in the United States and Canada, which are dominated
by self-interest. It is not consistent with collectivistic societies, in which individuals
are motivated by group goals. When research is compared across cultures, groups from
Eastern cultures had significantly lower rates of social loafing.
Research indicates that the stronger an individual’s work ethic is, the less likely
that person is to engage in social loafing.93 Also, the greater the level of conscientious-
ness and agreeableness (see the chapter on personality and values) in a group, the more
likely that performance will remain high whether there is social loafing or not.94 Virtual
groups also may have issues with social loafing, especially if members are dissimilar
and have a number of family responsibilities that detract their attention away from group
performance.95 There are ways to prevent social loafing:
1. Set group goals, so the group has a common purpose to strive toward.
2. Increase intergroup competition, which focuses on the shared group outcome.
3. Engage in peer evaluations.
4. Select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in groups.
5. Base group rewards in part on each member’s unique contributions, and structure
work so that each member’s contribution can be identified.96

GROUP PROPERTY 5: COHESIVENESS, AND GROUP PROPERTY 6:

DIVERSITY
For a group to be highly functioning, it must act cohesively as a unit. Furthermore, cer-
tain types of diversity can enable teams to perform better in different ways. Let us discuss
the importance of group cohesiveness first.

M09_ROBB6664_15_GE_C09.indd 174 26/04/2021 16:10

 Chapter 9 • Foundations of Group Behavior 175

Group Property 5: Cohesiveness

Groups differ in their cohesiveness—the shared bond driving group members to work Cohesiveness
together and to stay in the group.97 Some workgroups are cohesive because the members The shared bond driv-
ing group members to
have spent a great deal of time together, the group’s small size or purpose facilitates high work together and to
interaction, or external threats have brought members close together. stay in the group.
Cohesiveness affects group productivity, and vice versa.98 However, studies consis-
tently show that the relationship between cohesiveness and productivity depends on the
group’s performance-related norms.99 If norms for quality, output, and cooperation with
outsiders are high, a cohesive group will be more productive than 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 situation. When cohesiveness and performance-
related norms are both low, productivity tends to fall into the low-to-moderate range.
These conclusions are summarized in Exhibit 9-4.
Beyond playing Fortnight, Minecraft, or other video games with your group;100
what can you do to encourage group cohesiveness?
1. Make the group smaller.
2. Encourage agreement with group goals.
3. Increase the time members spend together.
4. Increase the group’s status and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership.
5. Stimulate competition with other groups.
6. Give rewards to the group rather than to individual members.
7. Physically isolate the group.101

Group Property 6: Diversity

The final group property we consider is diversity in the group’s membership, or the Diversity
degree to which members of the group are alike, or different from, one another. Overall, The extent to which
studies tend to be inconclusive, depend upon several contextual factors, and depend on members of a group
are similar to, or
how diversity is indexed and conceptualized.102 Interestingly, there is only a modest link different from, one
between actual diversity and perceived diversity (and even differences between major- another.
ity and minority perceptions of diversity!),103 and some research suggests that members
seek to balance a need to belong and a need to be distinctive in group membership. This
disconnect could also be because people tend to develop perceptions’ of their groups
diversity and perpetuate the status quo. For example, one study of the S&P 1500 boards

Cohesiveness EXHIBIT 9-4

High Low The Impact of
Performance Norms

Cohesiveness
High High Moderate
productivity productivity and
Performance
Norms on
Low Low Moderate to Productivity
productivity low productivity

M09_ROBB6664_15_GE_C09.indd 175 26/04/2021 16:10

 176 Part 3 • Communicating in Groups and Teams

found that there was a status quo norm across organizations to have two women, what the
researchers referred to as “twokenism.”104
Furthermore, perceived self-to-team dissimilarity and splits lead to negative effects, and
perceived group heterogeneity lead to both positive and negative effects.105 In other words,
maybe the effect of diversity is more contingent on how it is framed or perceived, such as
when executives adopt a “value-in-diversity” perspective.106 Despite the mixed state of things,
artificial intelligence research is, yet again, helping move this area forward, and a recent appli-
cation to multicultural manufacturing teams has produced a new way to assess how salient
social categories (e.g., race, gender) are to individual team members’ perceptions.107

TYPES OF GROUP DIVERSITY Surface-level diversity (e.g., gender, race; see the chapter
on diversity in organizations) appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early
stages of a group’s tenure, which often lowers group morale and raises dropout rates.108
One study compared groups that were culturally diverse and homogeneous (composed of
people from the same country). On a virtual wilderness survival test, the groups performed
equally well, but the members from the diverse groups were less satisfied with their
groups, were less cohesive, and had more conflict.109 Outsiders are even more likely to be
biased toward racially heterogenous groups and allocate less resources toward them.110
At a deeper level, groups in which members’ values or opinions differ tend to expe-
rience more conflict, but leaders who can get the group to focus on the task at hand and
encourage group learning are able to reduce these conflicts and enhance discussion of
group issues.111 Research in Korea indicates that putting people with a high need for power
(nPow; see the chapter on motivation concepts) with those with a low need for power can
reduce unproductive group competition, whereas putting individuals with a similar need for
achievement may increase task performance.112 Furthermore, diversity in propensity to trust
can cause downward trust spirals, which fuels conflict and further erodes trust over time.113
On the other hand, functional diversity, or differences in skills, abilities, or other
characteristics needed for the job, may improve team performance and innovation, but
these effects are contingent on several factors.114 For example, functional diversity can
influence team creativity by facilitating knowledge sharing.115 Leadership plays a sub-
stantial role in maximizing the benefits of functional diversity—great leaders bring dis-
parate skills together to do great work.116

CHALLENGES OF GROUP DIVERSITY Although differences can lead to conflict, they

also provide an opportunity to solve problems in unique ways. One study of jury behavior
found diverse juries were more likely to deliberate longer, share more information, and
make fewer factual errors when discussing evidence. Altogether, it is difficult to be in
a diverse group in the short term. They tend to homogenize over time, they are fragile,
and they tend to be prone to fragmentation.117 However, if members can weather their
Faultlines
The perceived divi- differences, over time diversity may help them to be more open-minded and creative
sions that split groups and to do better. For example, research into the development of identification in diverse
into two or more United Nations peacebuilding teams across the world shows that team members develop
subgroups based on a sense of identification, but that this evolves over time.118
individual differences
One possible negative effect of diverse teams—especially those that are diverse
such as sex, race,
age, work experi- in terms of surface-level characteristics—is faultlines, or perceived divisions that split
ence, language, and groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as sex, race, age,
education. work experience, language, and education.119

M09_ROBB6664_15_GE_C09.indd 176 26/04/2021 16:10

 Chapter 9 • Foundations of Group Behavior 177

For example, let us say Group A is composed of three black and three Hispanic
employees. The three Hispanic employees have approximately the same amount of
work experience and backgrounds in marketing. The three black employees have about
the same amount of work experience and backgrounds in finance. Group B has three
Hispanic and three black employees, but they all differ in terms of their experience and
backgrounds. Two of the black employees are experienced, while the other is new. One of
the Hispanic employees has worked at the company for several years, while the other two
are new. In addition, two of the black and one of the Hispanic employees in Group B have
backgrounds in marketing, while the others have backgrounds in finance. It is thus likely
that a faultline will result in the subgroups of black and Hispanic employees in Group A
but not in Group B, based on the differentiating characteristics.
Research on faultlines has shown that splits are generally detrimental to group
functioning and performance. Subgroups may compete, which takes time away from
core tasks and harms group performance. Groups that have subgroups learn more slowly,
make more risky decisions, are less creative, and experience higher levels of conflict.
Subgroups may not trust each other and may have low levels of cohesion.120 Finally, sat-
isfaction within subgroups is generally high, but the overall group’s satisfaction is lower
when faultlines are present.121 Are faultlines ever a good thing? One study suggested that
faultlines regarding skill, knowledge, and expertise may be beneficial in a results-driven
organizational culture. Why? A results-driven culture focuses people’s attention on what
is important to the company rather than on problems arising from subgroups.122
How can faultlines be addressed or harnessed for good within organizations?
Studies show that problems stemming from diversity and strong faultlines may be
overcome when their roles are crosscut, the group is given a common goal to strive
for, and similar pairs are recruited within a diverse group. Altogether, forced col-
laboration between members of subgroups and a focus on accomplishing a goal
may boost performance in certain organizations.123 Pro-diversity beliefs and open-
mindedness norms also help (and training can help improve this, when they are low):124
for example, one study of international diplomats with the German Ministry of Foreign
Affairs suggest that diplomat and team pro-diversity beliefs reduce the negative effect
of faultlines on performance.125 Similarly, research on multicultural groups suggests
that policies, practices, and procedures that welcome and accept diversity, and that
assume a diversity in thought, lead to an effective exchange of thoughts and to more
effective teams.126 Finally, there may be cultural differences in how group diversity
affects performance: a study of over 5,000 Himalayan climbing expeditions found that
collectivist values (see the chapter on personality and individual differences) blur the
lines between groups, which can lead to diversity either hurting or helping the group,
depending upon the task.127

GROUP DECISION MAKING

The belief—characterized by juries—that two heads are better than one has long been
accepted as a basic component of the U.S. legal system and those of many other coun-
tries. Many decisions in organizations are made by groups, teams, or committees. We will
discuss the advantages of group decision making, along with the unique challenges group
dynamics bring to the decision-making process. Finally, we will offer some techniques
for maximizing the group decision-making opportunity.

M09_ROBB6664_15_GE_C09.indd 177 26/04/2021 16:10

 178 Part 3 • Communicating in Groups and Teams

Groups Versus the Individual

Decision-making groups may be widely used in organizations, but are group decisions pref-
erable to those made by an individual alone? The answer depends on several factors. Let
us begin by looking at the strengths, weaknesses, and benefits of group decision making.

STRENGTHS OF GROUP DECISION MAKING Groups generate more complete

information and knowledge. By aggregating the resources of several individuals,
groups bring more input as well as heterogeneity into the decision process (as long as
this information is reliable).128 They offer increased diversity of views. This opens the
opportunity to consider more approaches and alternatives.129 Finally, groups lead to
increased acceptance of a solution. During decision making, members are more likely to
be accepting when dissenting opinions are framed as debates rather than disagreements.130
Group members who participate in deciding are more likely to enthusiastically support
and encourage others to accept it later.

WEAKNESSES OF GROUP DECISION MAKING Group decisions are time-consuming

because groups typically take more time to reach a solution, especially for virtual
groups.131 There are conformity pressures. The desire by group members to be accepted
and considered an asset to the group can squash any overt disagreement and cause group
members to settle for less.132 Group discussion can be dominated by one or a few members.
If they are low- and medium-ability members, the group’s overall effectiveness will suffer.
Interestingly, in virtual contexts, this may be addressed by allowing minority members to
have secret conversations and lead to improved decision quality.133 Also, setting a norm
that allows “lone dissenters,” or group members who have divergent opinions, can reduce
conformity and the influence of dominating members.134 Finally, group decisions suffer
from ambiguous responsibility. In an individual decision, it is clear who is accountable
for the outcome. In a group decision, the responsibility of any single member is diluted.

EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY Whether groups are more effective than individuals
depends on how you define effectiveness and who is making the evaluation. As discussed in
the chapter on perception and individual decision making, the accuracy of evaluators can be
affected by general perceptions of group cohesion and trust.135 Group decisions are generally
more accurate than the decisions of the average individual in a group, but generally less
accurate than the judgments of the most accurate person.136 In terms of speed, individuals
are superior. If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effective. And if effectiveness
means the degree of acceptance of achievable solutions, the nod again goes to the group.137
We cannot consider effectiveness without also assessing efficiency. With few excep-
tions, group decision making consumes more work hours than does having an individual
tackle the same problem. The exceptions tend to be instances in which, to achieve compa-
rable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time
reviewing files and talking to other people who have unique information that could lead to
a better solution.138 Research suggests that groups may be inefficient in decision making
if information is heavily dispersed among group members and effectively “hidden.” It
is very difficult to compile this information to make the best decision, and groups in
these situations are encouraged to openly and collaboratively share information to solve
the problem.139 In deciding whether to use groups, then, managers must assess whether
increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the reductions in efficiency.

M09_ROBB6664_15_GE_C09.indd 178 26/04/2021 16:10

 Chapter 9 • Foundations of Group Behavior 179

Groupthink and Groupshift Samsung

Two by-products of group decision making, groupthink and groupshift, can affect a In September
2016, the South
group’s ability to appraise alternatives objectively and achieve high-quality solutions. Korean corporation
Samsung was
GROUPTHINK Groupthink describes situations in which group pressures for conformity forced to recall all
deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views. of its Galaxy Note
Groupthink attacks many groups and can dramatically hinder their performance.140 7 phones. It was a
financial and public
Groupthink appears closely aligned with the conclusions Solomon Asch drew in his relations disaster.
experiments with a lone dissenter. Groups that are more focused on performance than on Considering the over
learning are especially likely to fall victim to groupthink and to suppress the opinions of 450,000 employees,
those who do not agree with the majority.141 Groupthink seems to occur most often early many commentators
in the group’s tenure, when there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive cited the groupthink
“cannot fail” attitude
image of their group they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat within Samsung
to its positive image.142 for allowing the
What can managers do to minimize groupthink?143 First, they can monitor group faulty product onto
size. People grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases. Managers the market. The
should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial role. In addition, man- negative power of
groupthink has, in
agers should appoint one group member to play the role of devil’s advocate, overtly the past, adversely
challenging the majority position and offering divergent perspectives. Yet another affected Nokia and
suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate active discussion of diverse alternatives Sony too.
without threatening the group or intensifying identity protection. Have group members
delay discussion of possible gains so they can first talk about the dangers or risks inherent
Groupthink
in a decision. A phenomenon in
which the norm for
GROUPSHIFT Groupshift, or group polarization, describes the way group members consensus overrides
tend to exaggerate their initial positions when discussing a given set of alternatives to the realistic appraisal
of alternative courses
arrive at a solution. We can view this group polarization as a special case of groupthink.
of action.
The group’s decision reflects the dominant decision-making norm—toward greater
caution or more risk—that develops during discussion.144 In groups, discussion leads Groupshift
members toward a more extreme view of the position they already held.145 A change between a
group’s decision and
The shift toward polarization has several explanations.146 It has been argued,
an individual decision
for instance, that discussion is persuasive and makes members more comfortable with that a member within
each other and thus more willing to express extreme versions of their original positions. the group would
Another argument is that the group diffuses responsibility. Group decisions free any sin- make; the shift can
gle member from accountability for the group’s final choice, so a more extreme position be toward either con-
servatism or greater
can be taken. It is also likely that people take extreme positions because they want to
risk, but it generally
demonstrate how different they are from the outgroup.147 is toward a more
We now turn to the techniques by which groups make decisions. These reduce extreme version of
some of the dysfunctional aspects of group decision making. the group’s original
position.
Group Decision-Making Techniques
The most common form of group decision making takes place in interacting groups.148 Interacting groups
Members rely on both verbal and nonverbal interactions to communicate. But as our Typical groups in
discussion of groupthink demonstrated, interacting groups often censor themselves and which members
interact with each
pressure individual members toward conformity of opinion. Brainstorming and the nomi- other, relying on both
nal group technique (discussed below) can reduce problems inherent in the traditional verbal and nonverbal
interacting group. communication.

M09_ROBB6664_15_GE_C09.indd 179 26/04/2021 16:10

 180 Part 3 • Communicating in Groups and Teams

Brainstorming BRAINSTORMING Brainstorming can overcome the pressures for conformity that
An idea-generation dampen creativity149 by encouraging any and all alternatives while withholding criticism.
process that specifi- In a typical brainstorming session, the group leader states the problem in a clear manner
cally encourages any
and all alternatives
so all group members understand. Members then freewheel as many alternatives as they
while withholding can in a given length of time. To encourage members to “think the unusual,” no criticism
any criticism of those is allowed, even of the most bizarre suggestions, and all ideas are recorded for later
alternatives. discussion and analysis.
Brainstorming may indeed generate ideas—but not very efficiently. Research
consistently shows individuals working alone generate more ideas than a group in a
brainstorming session. One reason for this is “production blocking.” When people are
­generating ideas in a group, many are talking at once, which blocks individuals’ thought
processes and eventually impedes the sharing of ideas.150

Nominal group NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE The nominal group technique may be more effective.
technique This technique restricts discussion and interpersonal communication during the decision-
A group decision- making process. Group members are all present, as in a traditional meeting, but they
making method in
which individual
operate independently. Specifically, a problem is presented and then the group takes the
members meet face following steps:
to face to pool their
judgments in a
1. Before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes down ideas
systematic but inde- about the problem.
pendent fashion. 2. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. No discussion
takes place until all ideas have been presented and recorded.
3. The group discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them.
4. Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas. The idea
with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.
The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits a group to
meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking. Research generally shows nom-
inal groups outperform brainstorming groups.151
Each of the group-decision techniques has its own set of strengths and weaknesses.
The choice depends on the criteria you want to emphasize and the cost–benefit trade-off.
As Exhibit 9-5 indicates, an interacting group is good for achieving commitment to a
solution; brainstorming develops group cohesiveness; and the nominal group technique is
an inexpensive means for generating many ideas.

Type of Group
Effectiveness Criteria Interacting Brainstorming Nominal
Number and quality of ideas Low Moderate High
Social pressure High Low Moderate
Money costs Low Low Low
Speed Moderate Moderate Moderate
Task orientation Low High High
Potential for interpersonal conflict High Low Moderate
Commitment to solution High Not applicable Moderate
Development of group cohesiveness High High Moderate

EXHIBIT 9-5
Evaluating Group Effectiveness

M09_ROBB6664_15_GE_C09.indd 180 26/04/2021 16:10

 Chapter 9 • Foundations of Group Behavior 181

SUMMARY
We can draw several implications from our discussion of groups. First, norms control
behavior by establishing standards of right and wrong. Second, status inequities create
frustration and can adversely influence productivity and willingness to remain with an
organization. Third, the impact of size on a group’s performance depends on the type of
task. Fourth, cohesiveness may influence a group’s level of productivity, depending on
the group’s performance-related norms. Fifth, diversity appears to have a mixed impact
on group performance, with some studies suggesting that diversity can help performance
and others suggesting the opposite. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced
tension and job dissatisfaction.152 Groups can be carefully managed toward positive or-
ganizational outcomes and optimal decision making. The next chapter will explore sev-
eral of these conclusions in greater depth.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS

• Recognize that groups can have a dramatic impact on individual behavior in orga-
nizations, to either a positive or negative effect. Therefore, pay special attention to
roles, norms, and cohesion—to understand how these are operating within a group
is to understand how the group is likely to behave.
• To decrease the possibility of deviant workplace activities, ensure that group norms
do not support antisocial behavior.
• Pay attention to the status aspect of groups. Because lower-status people tend to
participate less in group discussions, groups with high-status differences are likely
to inhibit input from lower-status members and reduce their potential.
• Use larger groups for fact-finding activities and smaller groups for action-taking
tasks. With larger groups, provide measures of individual performance.
• To increase employee satisfaction, ensure people perceive their job roles accurately.

M09_ROBB6664_15_GE_C09.indd 181 26/04/2021 16:10