Chapter NINE

Foundations of
Group Behavior
Defining and Classifying Groups

Group(s)
Two or more individuals interacting and
interdependent, who have come together
to achieve particular objectives.

Formal Group Informal Group

A designated work A group that is neither
group defined by the formally structured not
organization’s structure. organizationally determined;
appears in response to the
need for social contact.
Defining and Classifying Groups (cont’d)

Command Group Task Group

A group composed of Those working together
the individuals who to complete a job or task.
report directly to a
given manager.

Interest Group Friendship Group

Those working together Those brought together
to attain a specific because they share one
objective with which or more common
each is concerned. characteristics.
Why Do People Form Groups
 Social Identity theory: proposes that people have
emotional reactions to the failure or success of their
groups because their self-esteem gets tied into the
performance of the group
 People develop a lot of identities through the course
of their lives
 Ingroup favoritism: perspective in which we see
members of our ingroup as better than other people,
and people not in our group as all the same.
Why People Join Groups

• Security
• Status
• Self-esteem
• Affiliation
• Power
• Goal Achievement
The Five-Stage Model of Group Development

Forming Stage
The first stage in group development, characterized
by much uncertainty.

Storming Stage
The second stage in group development,
characterized by intragroup conflict.

Norming Stage
The third stage in group
development, characterized
by close relationships and
cohesiveness.
…Group Development (cont’d)

Performing Stage
The fourth stage in group development, when the
group is fully functional.

Adjourning Stage
The final stage in group
development for temporary
groups, characterized by
concern with wrapping up
activities rather than
performance.
 Possible Issues with the Model
 Proceeding through all five stages
 Ignores organizational context
Stages of Group Development
Group Structure - Roles (cont’d)

Role(s)
A set of expected behavior patterns attributed to
someone occupying a given position in a social unit.

Shakespeare said, “all the world’s a stage,

and all the men and women merely players.”

Role Perception
An individual’s view of how he or she is
supposed to act in a given situation.
Group Structure - Roles (cont’d)

Role Expectations
How others believe a person
should act in a given situation.

Psychological Contract
An unwritten agreement that sets
out what management expects from
the employee

Role Conflict
A situation in which an individual is confronted by
divergent role expectations.
Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment
 Student of Stanford university acted as prisoners
and guards
 Adopting new roles
 BBC “The Experiment”
Group Structure - Norms

Norms
Acceptable standards of behavior within a group
that are shared by the group’s members.

Classes of Norms:
• Performance norms
• Appearance norms
• Social arrangement norms
• Allocation of resources
norms
The Hawthorne Studies
 A series of studies undertaken by Elton Mayo at
Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in
Chicago between 1924 and 1932.
 Research Conclusions:
– Worker behavior and sentiments were closely related.
– Group influences (norms) were significant in affecting
individual behavior.
– Group standards (norms) were highly effective in
establishing individual worker output.
– Money was less a factor in determining worker output
than were group standards, sentiments, and security.
Group Structure - Norms (cont’d)

Conformity
Adjusting one’s behavior to align
with the norms of the group.

Reference Groups
Important groups to which
individuals belong or hope
to belong and with whose
norms individuals are likely
to conform.
Group Structure - Norms (cont’d)

Deviant Workplace Behavior

Antisocial actions by organizational members
that intentionally violate established norms and
result in negative consequences for the
organization, its members, or both.
 Typology of Deviant Workplace Behavior

Category Examples

Performance Leaving early, coming late

Intentionally working slowly
Wasting resources, being careless and
making mistakes
Material Sabotage, Arson
Stealing from the organization
Interpersonal Showing favoritism
Gossiping and spreading rumors
Blaming coworkers, being negative
Sexual harassment
Verbal abuse
Stealing from coworkers
Source: Adapted from S.L. Robinson, and R.J. Bennett. “A Typology of Deviant Workplace
Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study,” Academy of Management Journal, April 1995, p. 565.
.
© 2007 Prentice Hall Inc. All rights reserved.
S. Adams, Build a Better Life by Stealing Office Supplies (Kansas City MO: Andrews &
McMeal, 1991), p. 31. Dilbert reprinted with permission of United Features Syndicate, Inc.
 Group Properties - Status
Status: A socially defined position or rank given to groups
or group members by others.

Power over Status and

Others Norms

Ability to Group Member

Contribute Status

Other things influencing

Personal or influenced by status
Characteristics Status and
Group Status Inequity
Interaction
Group Structure - Size

Social Loafing
The tendency for individuals to expend less effort when
working collectively than when working individually.
Performance

g)
d

fin
te

a
ec

lo
o
p

t
Ex

e
(du
l
t ua
Ac

Group Size
 What causes social loafing?
• Others not carrying their fair share
• Dispersion of responsibility/free riders
 Ways to prevent social loafing
• Set group goals, so the group has a common purpose to
strive for
• Increase intergroup competition, which again focuses on
the shared outcome
• Engage in peer evaluation
• Select members who have high motivation and prefer to
work in groups
• Base group rewards in part on each member’s unique
contributions
Group Structure - Cohesiveness

Cohesiveness
Degree to which group members are attracted to
each other and are motivated to stay in the group.

Increasing group cohesiveness:

1. Make the group smaller.
2. Encourage agreement with group goals.
3. Increase time members spend together.
4. Increase group status and admission difficultly.
5. Stimulate competition with other groups.
6. Give rewards to the group, not individuals.
7. Physically isolate the group.
Relationship Between Group Cohesiveness,
Performance Norms, and Productivity

E X H I B I T 8–6
S. Adams, Build a Better Life by Stealing Office Supplies (Kansas City MO: Andrews & E X H I B I T 8–7
McMeal, 1991), p. 31. Dilbert reprinted with permission of United Features Syndicate, Inc.
Group Decision Making
 Strengths  Weaknesses
– More complete – More time
information consuming (slower)
– Increased diversity – Increased pressure
of views to conform
– Higher quality of – Domination by one
decisions (more or a few members
accuracy) – Ambiguous
– Increased responsibility
acceptance of
solutions
Group Decision Making (cont’d)

Groupthink
Phenomenon in which the norm for consensus
overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative course
of action.

Groupshift
A change in decision risk between the group’s
decision and the individual decision that member
within the group would make; can be either toward
conservatism or greater risk.
Symptoms Of The Groupthink Phenomenon
 Group members rationalize any resistance to the
assumptions they have made, no matter how
strong the resistance may be
 Members apply direct pressures on those who
express doubts about shared views or who
question the alternative favored by the majority.
 Members who have doubts or differing points of
view keep silent about their doubts in order to
confirm consensus.
 There appears to be an illusion of unanimity.
Group Decision-Making Techniques
Interacting Groups
Typical groups, in which the members interact with
each other face-to-face.

Brainstorming
An idea-generation process that specifically
encourages any and all alternatives, while
withholding any criticism of those alternatives.
Group Decision-Making Techniques

Nominal Group Technique

A group decision-making method in which individual
members meet face-to-face to pool their judgments
in a systematic but independent fashion.

Members meet as a group, write down

ideas before any discussion starts
After this silent period each member
presents one idea to the group
The group discusses the ideas for
clarity and evaluates them
Each group member silently and
independently rank order ideas
Group Decision-Making Techniques
Interacting Groups
Typical groups, in which the members interact with
each other face-to-face.

Brainstorming
An idea-generation process that specifically
encourages any and all alternatives, while
withholding any criticism of those alternatives.
Group Decision-Making Techniques
Interacting Groups
Typical groups, in which the members interact with
each other face-to-face.

Brainstorming
An idea-generation process that specifically
encourages any and all alternatives, while
withholding any criticism of those alternatives.
Group Decision-Making Techniques
Electronic Meeting
A meeting in which members interact on computers, allowing
for anonymity of comments and aggregation of votes.

Decreased group effectiveness

More time to complete tasks
Reduced member satisfaction compared with face-to-
face interaction
Evaluating Group Effectiveness
TYPE OF GROUP

Effectiveness Criteria Interacting Brainstorming Nominal Electronic

Number and quality of ideas Low Moderate High High

Social pressure High Low Moderate Low
Money costs Low Low Low High
Speed Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Task orientation Low High High High
Potential for interpersonal conflict High Low Moderate Low
Commitment to solution High Not applicable Moderate Moderate
Development of High High Moderate Low
group cohesiveness

E X H I B I T 8–8
Cultural Differences
 Status and culture
 Social loafing
 Group diversity in terms of culture
Dealing with SHIRKERS
 We’ve noted that one of the most common problems in
groups in social loafing, which means group members
contribute less than if they were working on their own. We
might call such individuals “Shirkers” – those who are
contributing far less than other group members.
Most of us have experienced social loafing, or shirking in
groups. We may even admit to times when we have shirked
ourselves. There are various ways of discouraging social
loafing, such as limiting group size, holding individuals
responsible for their contributions, and setting group
goals. While these tactics may be effective, in our
experience many students simply work around shirkers. “
We just did it ourselves- it was easier that way,” says one
group member.
 If group members end up “ working around”
shirkers, do you think this information should be
communicated to the instructor so that each
individual’s contribution to the project is judged
more fairly? If so, does the group have an ethical
responsibility to communicate this to the shirking
group member? If not, isn’t the shirking group
member unfairly reaping the rewards of a free
ride?
 Do you think confronting the shirking group
member is justified? Does this depend on the
skills of the shirker ( whether he or she is capable
of doing good quality work)?