[ORGB3201] Exam 2: Groups and Teams

Strengths of Group Decision Making

• Generate more info/knowledge

• Offer a diversity of views

• Lead to increased acceptance of a solution

Weaknesses of Group Decision Making

• Conformity pressures

• Discussions can be dominated by a few key members

• Groups may suffer from ambiguous responsibilities

Group

• Collection of 2 or more people

• Form because of social identity theory

Social identity theory

• People have emotional reactions to the failure or successes of their group because their self-esteem gets tied into the group performance

• Helps us understand where we fit in with other people, but it can lead to ingroup favoritism

Team

• 2 or more people working interdependently over some time period to accomplish common goals related to some task-oriented purpose

• Interdependence and shared accountability are what differentiate them from groups

Are more heads better than one? (Group performance = ?)

• Group performance = potential + (process gain - process loss)

• Group-related potential

  • Information production

• Group-related process gain

  • Information processing

• Group-related process loss

  • Coordination

  • Motivation

• TLDR: groups generate more information than individuals, but face coordination and motivation challenges that can undermine performance

Group-Related Potential for Information Production

• More brains = more (& more diverse) ideas, knowledge, expertise

• In general: more heads are better than one in this case (+)

Group-Related Process Gain: Information Processing

• Individuals have limited info processing capacities (i.e. attention, memory)

• Group members can extend this capacity

• Ex: transactive memory, collective intelligence

• In general: more heads are better than one in this case (+)

Transactive memory

• Transactive memory: mechanism by which groups encode, store, and recall knowledge

• Know in general what someone or something knows in details (know where to find something)

• Person or thing serves as your external memory

• The Google Effect: you don’t know what exact keywords to use, but you know the relative category info (Google — the other person — helps you get the result)

• Transactive memory in groups and teams: develop a shared memory system where different people are responsible for different sets of knowledge

Collective intelligence (“c factor”)

• Collective intelligence: measure of shared intelligence to explain group performance

• Strongly correlated with:

  • Average social sensitivity of group members

  • Equality of conversation

  • Proportion of women in group (not associated with avg. or max. Individual intelligence)

Murder Mystery Class Activity Outcomes

• Teams with more correct individual decisions are more likely to be correct as a team

• Less than 50% of teams select correct suspect even though collectively, every team has the same information

  • Why? The common knowledge problem

The common knowledge problem

• Groups spend the majority of time discussing information that they all have in common

• Unique information is rarely shared (if it is shared, it is often not widely discussed)

• Groups often make poor decisions because they do not fully communicate about all the information each member has

Group-Related Process Loss: Coordination

• Not everyone can speak at the same time

• The information the group focuses on isn’t always the most relevant or important

• Ex: Hidden Profile Task

  • Shared information points to one option, but incorporating unshared information points to a different, better option

• In general: more heads are worse than one in this case (-)

Hidden Profile Task

• Why don’t people share unique information in a group?

  • Disrupts drive towards consensus and need for closure → “closing of the group mind”

  • Conformity and desire to be liked

  • Communication of status → “I know what’s going on”

  • Memory → easier to recall shared information

  • Evaluate shared information as more important, relevant, and accurate

Group-Related Process Loss: Motivation

• Members exert less effort when feeling less accountable for team outcomes relative to independent work that results in individually identifiable outcomes

  • Ex: dishes piling up in the sink → roommates think one of them will eventually clean it

• Social loafing, conformity

• In general: more heads are worse than one in this case (-)

Social loafing

• Social loafing: diffusion of responsibility (increases with group size)

• Hard to assume who’s responsible for what in larger groups (i.e. groups of 3 vs. groups of 7)

• 1 + 1 + 1 doesn’t equal 3

Conformity

• Defer to, or passively accept, overt group opinion to preserve status

• Conform to imaginary wishes of the group (pluralistic ignorance or Abilene Paradox)

Individual & Group Decision Process (Desert Survival Activity)

• Average individual score

  • Knowledge/expertise that members bring to the group individually

  • Better average score = higher average level of resources, knowledge, and task skills available to group

• Group performance is more than knowledge/expertise individuals bring to the task

  • Interpersonal team processes

  • Average individual score > Group score → process loss

  • Average individual score < Group score → process gain

• Groups tend to perform better than the average individual, but (sometimes) worse than the best member

• Process gain (process is better) → wisdom of crowds

• Process loss → something went wrong

How to Combat Process Loss

• Nominal brainstorming technique

  • Assign devil’s advocate

• Put all information on board before open discussion

  • In some circumstances, consider private voting/info. aggregation

• Incentivize group members to avoid social loafing

Tuckman’s Stage of Group Development (Five-Stage Model)

1. Forming

2. Storming

3. Norming

4. Performing

5. Adjourning

Stage 1: Forming

• Who are you guys?

• What are we doing here?

• Uncertainty, working on defining the task and how to approach it

• Focus on learning about other team members and what they offer via information seeking and self-disclosure

• Successful teams: focus on identifying goals and coordination (agree on goals)

Stage 2: Storming

• We’re going to do things MY WAY!

• Focus on mastering the task, without regard to social coordination

• For 50% of teams, this results in significant conflict (task and relational)

  • Rules haven’t been set yet

• Tolerance of differences and patience will be key

• Successful teams: develop mutual trust

Stage 3: Norming

• Ok fine, let’s work together. But HOW?

• When common goal is highlighted, members begin to think about how they must coordinate actions to be effective

• Common expectations about acceptable group conduct are formed

• Successful teams: Empower members to express ideas and set productive norms

Two Basic Kinds of Norms

• Descriptive norms

• Prescriptive norms

Descriptive norms

• Shared beliefs about what is typical or usual

• Influence our behavior through a social information mechanism

• Ex: 90% of NEU students recycle, and you should too

• More powerful for immediate team behavior → highlight safe actions through social proof

Prescriptive norms

• Shared beliefs about what people should do

• Influence our behavior through the threat of social sanctions or ostracism

• Ex: You should recycle because it’s the right thing to do

• Better for setting formal standards and ensuring consistency

Stage 4: Performing

• It’s GO TIME!

• Focus on achieving common goals

• Team is now competent

Stage 5: Adjourning

• THE END

• The end of a group’s lifespan

• Can be intentional or not (i.e. downsizing)

  • Natural → group project ends

  • Downsizing → layoffs

The Punctuated-Equilibrium Model

• For temporary groups with deadlines (don’t usually follow Tuckman’s model)

• Order:

  • First meeting → sets up group direction and framework for the rest of the model

  • First phase of group activity (period of inertia)

  • Transition → happens at the midpoint of first meeting and deadline

  • Major changes as a result of transition → dropping old patterns, taking on new perspectives

  • Second phase of inertia → execution of plans

  • Group’s last meeting (final burst of activities)

Groupthink

• When the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action

• Result of group pressures for conformity

• Lack of criticism of unusual, minority, or unpopular views → hinders performance

• Illusion of unanimity

• Make sure you’re actively seeking opinions from all group members (groupthink is more likely to occur with larger groups)

Groupshift

• Group discussion causes members to adopt more extreme positions—either much riskier or more cautious—than their initial, individual viewpoints

• Conservatives become more cautious

• More aggressive types take on more risk

• Causes:

  • Discussion makes people more comfortable

  • Diffusion of group responsibility (isn’t a single member who has to take accountability)

  • People want to demonstrate how different they are from the group (outgroup)