Présentation PowerPointGroup vs. Team
group: a set of interacting individuals who may have come together
formally or informally towards achieving a specific agenda (common
stated goals) or not
group cohesion (cohesiveness): the perceived/felt psycho-cognitive
proximity/identification among its members → how much close they
feel to each other
group cohesion has been found to differ across national
cultures
team: a rather formal group of individuals characterized by a high
degree of cohesion among its members towards achieving a specific
agenda
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September
2009
Tuckman’s (1965) Five-Stages of Group Development
forming: getting acquainted - “testing the waters”→ completed when
group membership is “realized”
storming: intra-group conflict about group constraints on
“individuality” as well as to who will lead the group and how tasks
will be distributed → completed when leadership hierarchy and task
distribution are solidified (formal structure)
norming: development of consensus about what constitutes “correct”
behavior within the group which upgrades group cohesion → completed
when the informal structure of the group is solidified
performing: both formal and informal structure of the group are
fully functional and promote the focus in performing the task at
hand → completed when the group goals are attained
adjourning: preparing to disband while celebrating accomplishment
and perhaps starting to feel nostalgic because of the loss of any
affective relationships developed during the group’s life which is
due shortly → completed when the group is completely
dissolved
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September
2009
Group Properties
group size does affect overall group behavior
whether the effect is positive or negative depends on the type of
the behavior examined
smaller groups are faster at completing tasks and taking action
while individuals perform better in smaller groups (~5
members)
larger groups are better in critical thinking & problem solving
(>12 members)
groups with an odd number of members are preferable to those with
an even number
the optimal group size seems to be 5-7 members
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September
2009
Group Properties…
social loafing or free-rider effect: the individual tendency to
expend less effort when performing collectively than
individually
The Rope-Pulling Experiment (Max Ringelman 1920’s)
total group effort is less than the sum of individual members’
efforts
social loafing tends to increase with team size everything else
kept constant→ individual performance assessment becomes critical
in such cases
the determining factor is group cohesiveness
there is ample evidence of extremely cohesive teams where the total
team effort approaches that of the sum of individual members or
even super-exceeds that
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September
2009
Group Properties…
roles: a set of specific behavior patterns expected by an
individual who occupies a certain group position which defines
them
role identity: those attitudes & behavior consistent with a
role
role perception: the individual view of his role identity
role expectation: the appropriate attitudes and behavior consistent
with a specific role in a given situation that others envisage →
e.g. psychological contract: the informal agreement between the
individual and the representative of the organization/management
that sets what is expected by the individual in exchange for
what
role conflict: a situation where an individual is confronted by
divergent role expectations
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September
2009
Group Properties…
when the role perception of the employee fulfills his/her
supervisor’s role expectation the employee will receive a higher
performance evaluation and vice versa
high congruence between the role perception of the employee and
his/her supervisor’s role expectation is highly correlated with
high employee job satisfaction
role conflict is highly correlated with job-induced tension and job
dissatisfaction
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September
2009
Group Properties…
norms: shared informal standards of attitudes & behavior
one of the basic ingredients of the informal structure (culture
& climate)
performance norms
appearance norms
Group Properties…
norms interact with cohesiveness
when performance norms are high, a high cohesive group outperforms
a less cohesive one
when performance norms are low and cohesiveness high, performance
will be low
when both performance norms and cohesiveness are low, performance
will fall into the low-to-moderate range
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September
2009
Group Properties…
surface-level (demographic) diversity: readily observable or
available (e. g. through CV’s) individual differences in race,
ethnicity, national culture, gender, age, physical attributes,
language, education & professional experience
Harrison, Price & Bell (1998)
Group Properties…
separation: quantitative polarization/segmentation within the
group→ e.g. 40% French & 60% German
variety: qualitative differentiation within the group and how
evenly this is distributed among the members of the group → e.g.
how many types of undergraduate specializations exist within the
group over the total number of members
disparity: the mean (average) value of the individual members’
scores with reference to a given quantitative variable and how
individual scores are distributed around the mean→ taking into
account the average score of GMA and the standard deviation or
variance of the distribution of individual GMA scores
Harrison and Klein (2007)
Group Properties…
surface-level diversity appears to affect more group outcomes early
in the life of a group while deep-level later on
the various types of surface-level diversity are considered proxies
(approximations) of some type of deep-level diversity
deep-level diversity is by far a better predictor of group outcomes
than surface level diversity
diversity in general is relatively more prosperous for highly
complex & difficult tasks (exception disparity in abilities →
e.g. GMA: Stewart, 2006) & detrimental when speed of decision
making is top priority
the relationship of diversity with group performance is highly
complex→ multiple intervening situational variables
diversity in general appears to have an inverted U shape
relationship with group performance (Cavarretta, 2007; Van Der Vegt
& Bunderson, 2005; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007
this practically means that too low levels of diversity are
detrimental, moderate levels of diversity are the optimal in terms
of maximizing performance and high levels of diversity are also
detrimental
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September
2009
Group Properties…
conformity : the individual tendency to align with the direction of
the group
The Solomon Asch Experiment (1951, 1956)
75% of the subjects conformed at least once
average conformity level was 37%
2.bin
The “Triumph” of Conformity: Groupthink
groupthink: flawed decision making of over-cohesive groups (Irving
Janis, 1971)
Janis identified a series of groupthink antecedents & symptoms
that may determine the probability that groupthink may be or will
be in effect
the more antecedents & symptoms identified in a group the
greater the probability that the group is or will fall a victim of
groupthink
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September
2009
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September
2009
The “Umbrella” of the Group: Groupshift
groupshift: the group final decision in terms of risk-taking tends
to exaggerate the initial dominant position held within the
group
risk averse groups tend to become even more risk averse
risk taking groups tend to become even more risk taking
it seems that more often the shift is towards more risk
groupshift can be viewed as a special case of groupthink
most probable cause is the sense of de-individualization of
responsibility felt by members: the responsibility “umbrella”
provided by the group
Human Resources, Law and Management Department - September
2009
Advantages of Groups over Individuals
Higher level of information & knowledge
Broader perspective (diversity) on issues
Better problem comprehension
More alternatives considered
*
Conflict
Negative social pressure
Disadvantages of Groups
Types of Group Decision Making
Reaching a consensus
Using the Delphi Technique
Brainstorming
A common group practice. This technique requires group members to
generate as many ideas as possible, quickly and without inhibition.
It precedes decision-making. For brainstorming to work effectively,
all members must agree to and deliberately follow four rules:
1. All criticism is ruled out
« Freewheeling » is welcomed
Delphi Technique
A group decision making technique that uses questionnaires to reach
consensus. More effective when geographically dispersed members
need to reach a decision, or when expert information is needed from
people outside the organization.
Four phases
1. Exploration of the subject by the individual members
2. Reaching understanding of the group’s view of the issues
3. Discussion and evaluation of any reasons for differences
4. Final evaluation or all information
*
Nominal Group Technique
The NGT works best when the group is so large that free
discussion is difficult, or when members disagree and consensus
cannot be reached.
In this technique, members reach consensus by following this
sequence:
ideas are generated (brainstorming)