Groups and Teams – Chapter 8 Comprehensive Notes

Group
- Collection of $\ge 2$ people who interact such that each member influences and is influenced by every other member.
Team
- An interdependent collection of at least two individuals who:
- Share a common goal.
- Hold collective as well as individual accountability for outcomes.

Formal groups
- Established by the organization; appear on org‐chart or in official documents.
Informal groups
- Self-created by members; arise from social or interest-based needs rather than formal authority.

Workgroup (generic)
- Any formal group the organization forms to accomplish work.
Command group
- Relatively permanent; defined by the formal reporting relationships shown in the org-chart (e.g., a department under one manager).
Affinity group
- Employees at the same hierarchical level who meet regularly to share information, spot new opportunities, or solve problems.
- Cross-functional but level-constant; supplements—not replaces—formal structure.

Friendship group
- Permanent & informal; primary benefit = social relationships (e.g., lunch buddies).
Interest group
- Temporary & informal; organized around a common activity/interest (e.g., a softball team, charity committee).

Ingroup favoritism: Tendency to see members of one’s own group as better and more varied than outsiders.
Outgroup: Those not in the focal ingroup; often stereotyped as homogeneous.
- Presence of an ingroup necessitates an outgroup.

Role: Bundle of expected behavior patterns tied to a given position.
- Role perception: Individual’s view of how to act.
- Role expectations: How others believe the individual should act.
- Psychological contract: Unwritten set of expectations between individual & organization/group.
Role conflict
- Occurs when the individual faces divergent expectations.
- Inter-role conflict: Expectations from multiple groups clash (e.g., employee vs parent).

Homogeneity: Members similar in critical ways.
- Better for simple, sequential, cooperative, or fast tasks.
Heterogeneity: Members differ in critical ways.
- Better for complex, creative, collective-effort, or accuracy-focused tasks.

Affects resources, communication bandwidth, participation, and formality.
Large groups
- Advantage: Diverse input / information pool.
- Risk: Social loafing & coordination issues.
Small groups
- Advantage: Action, implementation, cohesion.
Social loafing: Individuals exert less effort collectively than alone.
Ideal size depends on:
- Members’ ability to interact & influence.
- Maturity of group.
- Task complexity/structure.
- Leader’s ability to manage communication & conflict.

Norm: Shared standard against which behavior is judged.
- Derive from member personalities, situational cues, and group history.
Purposes:
1. Survival of the group.
2. Predictability & simplification of behavior.
3. Prevention of embarrassment.
4. Expression of central values and group identity.

Degree to which members are committed to staying together.
Strengthened by:
- Attraction between members.
- Shared successes.
- Personal motivation to remain.
High cohesiveness + aligned goals ⇒ high performance.

Informal leader: Exercises leadership without formal authority.
- Sources of power: Referent (likability) or expert knowledge.
- Can be a major asset when aligned with org goals; a disruptor when not (e.g., silos).

Two complementary models are presented:

Mutual acceptance: Members share personal info; build familiarity.
Communication & decision making: More open feelings; agree on goals & roles.
Motivation & productivity: Cooperation; mutual support to accomplish tasks.
Control & organization: Mature stage; flexible, adaptive, self-correcting.

Forming: $\text{High uncertainty}$ ; members test the waters.
Storming: Intragroup conflict over roles & leadership.
Norming: Emergence of cohesion; establishment of norms.
Performing: Group becomes fully functional & task-focused.
Adjourning (for temporary groups): Focus on wrapping up activities & closure.

Groupthink
- Pressure for conformity suppresses dissent & critical review.
- Results in poor decisions due to unexamined alternatives.
- Example: Board of directors rubber-stamping a flawed CEO plan.
- Mitigation: Encourage devil’s advocacy, anonymous input, diverse teams.
Group shift (risky/conservative shift)
- After discussion, group decision becomes more extreme than individual members’ average.
- Drivers: Increased confidence, diluted personal accountability, persuasive arguments.
- Example: Jury moving from moderate to harsh penalty post‐deliberation.

Classic evidence: Asch line-length experiments showed individuals conforming to clearly wrong majority judgments to avoid social alienation.
Demonstrates power of norms to mold individual behavior, even against physical evidence.

Match group composition to task demands (homogeneous vs heterogeneous).
Keep size optimal to balance diversity & coordination; vigilance against social loafing.
Foster clear, constructive norms and align cohesiveness with organizational goals.
Recognize & channel informal leaders positively.
Guide teams through developmental stages with appropriate support (clarity in forming, conflict resolution in storming, etc.).
Guard against groupthink and extreme group shifts by promoting an environment of open dissent and structured decision protocols.

Social identity processes (ingroup/outgroup) can bolster cohesion but risk bias & discrimination; ethical leadership must promote inclusion.
Psychological contracts underline implicit promises; breach can erode trust.
Informal structures (friendship & interest groups) can enhance morale but may conflict with formal authority—requires empathetic management.