FOUNDATIONS OF GROUP BEHAVIOR
1) Explain the five stages of group development.
Tuckman’s Five Stage Theory of Group Development is important to group success. The first stage is forming, which is the “ice breaking” stage. Here the introductions are done as each member tries to evaluate others. The second stage is storming. In this stage individuals start to compare their views to the views of others. It is at this stage where conflict and power struggles may occur. The third stage is norming, where group roles and rules are established. The fourth stage is performing. In this stage roles and rules are followed in order to obtain the overall group goals. The last stage is adjourning, which allows the individual group members to evaluate their progress toward meeting their group goals.
2) Punctuated-Equilibrium Model
The punctuated equilibrium model is an alternative model for temporary groups with deadlines. They don’t follow the five-stage group development model. They have their own unique sequencing of actions. Their first meeting sets the group’s direction. This first phase of group activity is one of inertia. A transition takes place at the end of this phase, which occurs exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time. A transition initiates major changes. A second phase of inertia follows the transition and the group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity.
3) The role experiment is best explained through Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment by Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his associate.
The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of 70 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Roles were assigned at random. They adapted to their roles well beyond that expected, leading the guards to display to authoritarian and even draconian measures. Two of the prisoners were upset enough by the process to quit the experiment early, and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. The experimental process and the results remain controversial.
4) Explain the finding of Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne studies.
This series of research, first led by Harvard Business School professor Elton Mayo along with associates F.J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson started out by examining the physical and environmental influences of the workplace (e.g. brightness of lights, humidity) and later, moved into the psychological aspects (e.g. breaks, group pressure, working hours, managerial leadership). The ideas that this team developed about the social dynamics of groups in the work setting had lasting influence - the collection of data, labor-management relations, and informal interaction among factory employees. The major finding of the study was that almost regardless of the experimental manipulation employed, the production of the workers seemed to improve. In other word, competition between groups will maximize group output. One reasonable conclusion is that the workers were pleased to receive attention from the researchers who expressed an interest in them.
5) The degree to which members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group was demonstrated by Solomon Asch’s study of conformity. Explain the experiment in brief.
The study was based on 1950's work by the psychologist Solomon Asch. The study was based on a famous series of laboratory experiments from the 1950's by a social psychologist, Dr. Solomon Asch. In those early studies, the subjects were shown two cards. On the first was a vertical line. On the second were three lines, one of them the same length as that on the first card. Then the subjects were asked to say which two lines were alike, something that most 5-year-olds could answer correctly. But Dr. Asch added a twist. Seven other people, in cahoots with the researchers, also examined the lines and gave their answers before the subjects did. And sometimes these confederates intentionally gave the wrong answer. Dr. Asch was astonished at what happened next. After thinking hard, three out of four subjects agreed with the incorrect answers given by the confederates at least once. And one in four conformed 50 percent of the time.
Dr. Asch, who died in 1996, always wondered about the findings. Did the people who gave in to group do so knowing that their answers was wrong? Or did the social pressure actually change their perceptions? In many areas of society - elections, for example, or jury trials - the accepted way to resolve conflicts between an individual and a group is to invoke the "rule of the majority." There is a sound reason for this: A majority represents the collective wisdom of many people, rather than the judgment of a single person.
6) As group performance increases with group size, the addition of new members to the group has negative returns on productivity. This has been labeled Social Loafing.
Social loafing describes the phenomenon that occurs when individuals exert less effort when working as a group than when working independently. Research indicates that there is some degree of social loafing within every group, whether high-functioning or dysfunctional. Working in groups has a number of advantages over working individually, but one disadvantage of working collectively is a phenomenon known as social loafing. Social loafing occurs whenever a member of a group feels compelled or permitted to exert less effort than he or she would have exerted as an individual. A individual singing "Happy Birthday" to a co-worker may sing at full voice, for example, but that same person will sing much softer within a group. Social loafing is often the result of individuals relaxing within the more anonymous confines of a group, especially when individual effort is not being measured or acknowledged.
7) Discuss strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.
The strengths of group decision making include:
a) more complete information and knowledge.
b) more input into the decision process.
c) increased diversity of views. This opens up the opportunity for more
approaches and alternatives to be considered.
d) always outperform even the best individual.
e) generate higher quality decisions.
f) increased acceptance of a solution. Members who participated in making a
decision are likely to enthusiastically support the decision and encourage
others to accept it.
Groups also have drawbacks.
a) time consuming. They take more time to reach a solution than would be the
case if an individual were making the decision alone.
b) conformity pressures in groups.
c) squashing any overt disagreement.
d) dominated by one or a few members. If this dominant coalition is composed
of low- and moderate-ability members, the group’s overall effectiveness
will suffer.
e) ambiguous responsibility-the responsibility of any single member is watered
down.
8) Explain how groupthink and groupshift deteriorates group performance.
Two major aspects of group dynamics are groupthink and groupshift. These phenomena can affect a team’s ability to appraise alternatives objectively and to arrive at quality decisions.
In groupthink, the norm for group consensus overrides an individual’s propensity to appraise alternative courses of action. A group may behave or take a position that is contrary to an individual member’s beliefs, but the individual’s need for affiliation is so strong that that he or she goes along with the group instead of asserting his or her beliefs. When groupthink occurs, team members withhold their ideas because they fear the consequence of being perceived as an outsider and not as a team player. In addition, the need for consensus prevents robust debate because individuals’ disagreement with the status quo is viewed as a problem instead of as a strength.
In groupshift, the initial position of individuals in the group exaggerates toward a more extreme position. An example of groupshift is when the fans of a sports team celebrate the win of their team and their celebration turns to destruction of property. When groupshift occurs, conservative individuals may become more cautious and aggressive individuals may take more risks. Whether the shift is toward more caution or more risk depends on how individuals behave before they engage in group discussion or activities. Individuals may undergo a dramatic behavior change and fail to consider risks. They may display a negative attitude towards planning and development of proactive responses.
by Jakaria Dasan
School of Business and Economics
Universiti Malaysia Sabah
Tuckman’s Five Stage Theory of Group Development is important to group success. The first stage is forming, which is the “ice breaking” stage. Here the introductions are done as each member tries to evaluate others. The second stage is storming. In this stage individuals start to compare their views to the views of others. It is at this stage where conflict and power struggles may occur. The third stage is norming, where group roles and rules are established. The fourth stage is performing. In this stage roles and rules are followed in order to obtain the overall group goals. The last stage is adjourning, which allows the individual group members to evaluate their progress toward meeting their group goals.
2) Punctuated-Equilibrium Model
The punctuated equilibrium model is an alternative model for temporary groups with deadlines. They don’t follow the five-stage group development model. They have their own unique sequencing of actions. Their first meeting sets the group’s direction. This first phase of group activity is one of inertia. A transition takes place at the end of this phase, which occurs exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time. A transition initiates major changes. A second phase of inertia follows the transition and the group’s last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity.
3) The role experiment is best explained through Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment by Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his associate.
The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of 70 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Roles were assigned at random. They adapted to their roles well beyond that expected, leading the guards to display to authoritarian and even draconian measures. Two of the prisoners were upset enough by the process to quit the experiment early, and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. The experimental process and the results remain controversial.
4) Explain the finding of Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne studies.
This series of research, first led by Harvard Business School professor Elton Mayo along with associates F.J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson started out by examining the physical and environmental influences of the workplace (e.g. brightness of lights, humidity) and later, moved into the psychological aspects (e.g. breaks, group pressure, working hours, managerial leadership). The ideas that this team developed about the social dynamics of groups in the work setting had lasting influence - the collection of data, labor-management relations, and informal interaction among factory employees. The major finding of the study was that almost regardless of the experimental manipulation employed, the production of the workers seemed to improve. In other word, competition between groups will maximize group output. One reasonable conclusion is that the workers were pleased to receive attention from the researchers who expressed an interest in them.
5) The degree to which members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay in the group was demonstrated by Solomon Asch’s study of conformity. Explain the experiment in brief.
The study was based on 1950's work by the psychologist Solomon Asch. The study was based on a famous series of laboratory experiments from the 1950's by a social psychologist, Dr. Solomon Asch. In those early studies, the subjects were shown two cards. On the first was a vertical line. On the second were three lines, one of them the same length as that on the first card. Then the subjects were asked to say which two lines were alike, something that most 5-year-olds could answer correctly. But Dr. Asch added a twist. Seven other people, in cahoots with the researchers, also examined the lines and gave their answers before the subjects did. And sometimes these confederates intentionally gave the wrong answer. Dr. Asch was astonished at what happened next. After thinking hard, three out of four subjects agreed with the incorrect answers given by the confederates at least once. And one in four conformed 50 percent of the time.
Dr. Asch, who died in 1996, always wondered about the findings. Did the people who gave in to group do so knowing that their answers was wrong? Or did the social pressure actually change their perceptions? In many areas of society - elections, for example, or jury trials - the accepted way to resolve conflicts between an individual and a group is to invoke the "rule of the majority." There is a sound reason for this: A majority represents the collective wisdom of many people, rather than the judgment of a single person.
6) As group performance increases with group size, the addition of new members to the group has negative returns on productivity. This has been labeled Social Loafing.
Social loafing describes the phenomenon that occurs when individuals exert less effort when working as a group than when working independently. Research indicates that there is some degree of social loafing within every group, whether high-functioning or dysfunctional. Working in groups has a number of advantages over working individually, but one disadvantage of working collectively is a phenomenon known as social loafing. Social loafing occurs whenever a member of a group feels compelled or permitted to exert less effort than he or she would have exerted as an individual. A individual singing "Happy Birthday" to a co-worker may sing at full voice, for example, but that same person will sing much softer within a group. Social loafing is often the result of individuals relaxing within the more anonymous confines of a group, especially when individual effort is not being measured or acknowledged.
7) Discuss strengths and weaknesses of group decision making.
The strengths of group decision making include:
a) more complete information and knowledge.
b) more input into the decision process.
c) increased diversity of views. This opens up the opportunity for more
approaches and alternatives to be considered.
d) always outperform even the best individual.
e) generate higher quality decisions.
f) increased acceptance of a solution. Members who participated in making a
decision are likely to enthusiastically support the decision and encourage
others to accept it.
Groups also have drawbacks.
a) time consuming. They take more time to reach a solution than would be the
case if an individual were making the decision alone.
b) conformity pressures in groups.
c) squashing any overt disagreement.
d) dominated by one or a few members. If this dominant coalition is composed
of low- and moderate-ability members, the group’s overall effectiveness
will suffer.
e) ambiguous responsibility-the responsibility of any single member is watered
down.
8) Explain how groupthink and groupshift deteriorates group performance.
Two major aspects of group dynamics are groupthink and groupshift. These phenomena can affect a team’s ability to appraise alternatives objectively and to arrive at quality decisions.
In groupthink, the norm for group consensus overrides an individual’s propensity to appraise alternative courses of action. A group may behave or take a position that is contrary to an individual member’s beliefs, but the individual’s need for affiliation is so strong that that he or she goes along with the group instead of asserting his or her beliefs. When groupthink occurs, team members withhold their ideas because they fear the consequence of being perceived as an outsider and not as a team player. In addition, the need for consensus prevents robust debate because individuals’ disagreement with the status quo is viewed as a problem instead of as a strength.
In groupshift, the initial position of individuals in the group exaggerates toward a more extreme position. An example of groupshift is when the fans of a sports team celebrate the win of their team and their celebration turns to destruction of property. When groupshift occurs, conservative individuals may become more cautious and aggressive individuals may take more risks. Whether the shift is toward more caution or more risk depends on how individuals behave before they engage in group discussion or activities. Individuals may undergo a dramatic behavior change and fail to consider risks. They may display a negative attitude towards planning and development of proactive responses.
by Jakaria Dasan
School of Business and Economics
Universiti Malaysia Sabah
Comments
Post a Comment