DYSFUNCTIONS OF GROUPS:Norm Violation, Group Think, Risky Shift

<< GROUPS AND TEAMS:Why Groups Are Formed, Forming, Storming

JOB DESIGN:Job Rotation, Job Enlargement, Job Enrichment, Skill Variety >>

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

LESSON 37

DYSFUNCTIONS OF GROUPS

Dysfunctions of groups refer to the negative functions of groups. These include the following four:

Norm Violation

Norm is the standard against which appropriateness of a behavior is judged. Thus, norms determine the

behavior expected in a certain situation. By providing a basis for predicting others' behaviors, norms enable

people to behave in a manner consistent with and acceptable to the group. Without norms, the activities of

the group would be chaotic. Groups often tend to violate norms by displaying antisocial behavior, lying,

sexual harassment, rumor mongering, etc.

Group Think

The phenomenon of group think is related to norms. It describes situation in which group pressures for

conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views. Groupthink is a

disease that attacks many groups and can dramatically hinder their performance.

It is the phenomenon that occurs when group members become so enamored of seeking concurrence; the

norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action and the full expression

of deviant, minority, or unpopular views. It describes deterioration in and individual's mental efficiency,

reality testing, and moral judgment as a result of group pressures.

Symptoms of the group think phenomenon are:

1. Group members rationalize any resistance to the assumptions they have made. No matter how

strongly the evidence may contradict their basic assumptions, members behave so as to

reinforce those assumptions continually.

2. Members apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express doubts about any of the

group's shared views or who question the validity of arguments supporting the alternative

favored by the majority.

3. Those members who have doubts or hold differing points of view seek to avoid deviating from

what appears to be group consensus by keeping silent about misgiving and even minimizing to

themselves the importance of their doubts.

4. There appears to be an illusion of unanimity. If someone does not speak, it is assumed he or

she is in full accord. In other words, abstention becomes viewed as a "Yes" vote.

Evidence suggests that not al groups are equally vulnerable to group think. Researchers have focused on

three moderating variables--the group's cohesiveness, its leader's behavior, and its insulation from

outsiders--but the findings have not been consistent. At this point, the most valid conclusions we can make

are these:

1. Highly cohesive groups have more discussion and bring out more information, but it is unclear

whether such groups discourage dissent;

2. groups with impartial leaders who encourage member input generate and discuss more

alternative solutions;

3. leaders should avoid expressing a preferred solution early in the group's discussion because this

tends to limit critical analysis and significantly increase the likelihood the group will adopt this

solution as the final choice; and;

4. Insulation of the group leads to fewer alternative being generated and evaluated.

Risky Shift

In comparing group decisions with individual decisions of members within the group, evidence suggests

that there are differences. In some cases, the group decisions are more conservative than the individual

decisions. More often, the shift is toward greater risk. What appears to happen in groups is that the

discussion leads to a significant shift in the positions of members toward a more extreme position in the

direction toward which they were already leaning before the discussion. So conservative types become more

cautions and the more aggressive types take on more risk. The group discussion tends to exaggerate the

initial position of the group.

The risky shift can be viewed as a special case of groupthink. The decision of the group reflects the

dominant decision-making norm that develops during the group's discussion. Whether the shift in the

group's decision is toward greater caution or more risk depends on the dominant pre-discussion norm.

127

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

The greater occurrence of the shift toward risk has generated several explanations for the phenomenon. It

has been argued, for instance, that the discussion creates familiarization among the members. AS they

become more comfortable with each other, they also become more bold and daring. Another argument is

that our society values risk, we admire individual who are willing to take risks, and group discussion

motivates members to show they are at least as wiling as their peers to take risks. The most plausible

explanation of the shift toward risk, however, seems to be that the group diffuses responsibility Group

decision free any single member from accountability for the group's final choice. Greater risk can be taken

because even if the decision fails, no one member can be held wholly responsible.

Social Loafing

Social loafing is the tendency for individual to expend less effort when working collectively than when

working individually. It directly challenges the logic that the productivity of the group as a whole should at

least equal the sum of the productivity of each individual in that group.

A common stereotype about groups is that the sense of team spirit spurs individual effort and enhances the

group's overall productivity. In the late 1920s, a German psychologist named Ringelmann compared the

results of individual and group performance on a rope-pulling task. He expected that the group's effort

would be equal to the sum of the efforts of individuals within the group; that is, three people pulling

together should exert three times as much pull on the rope as one person, and eight people should exert

eight times as much pull. Ringelmann's results, however, did not confirm these expectations. Groups of

three people exerted a force only two-and-a-half times the average individual performance. Group of eight

collectively achieved less that four times the solo rate. Therefore, increases in group size are inversely related

to individual performance.

Teams

Groups and teams are not the same thing. A group is a two or more individuals, interacting and

interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives. A team is a specially created group

in an organization for some specific purposes. A work team is a group whose individual efforts result in a

performance that is greater that the sum of those individual inputs.

Types of Teams

Teams can be classified on their objective. Following are three of the common types of teams:CROSS

Functional Teams

Cross-functional teams consist of individuals from various departments of an organization. They are

employees from about the same hierarchical level, but from different work areas who come together to

accomplish a task. Cross-functional teams are an effective way to allow people from diverse areas within an

organization (or even between organizations) to exchange information, develop new ideas and solve

problems, and coordinate complex projects. Of course, cross-functional teams are no picnic to manage.

Their early stages of development are often very time consuming as members learn to work with diversity

and complexity. It takes time to build trust and team-work, especially among people from different

background, with different experiences and perspectives.

Virtual Teams

Virtual teams are teams that may never actually meet together in the same room--their activities take place

on the computer via teleconferencing and other electronic information systems. Engineers in the United

States can connect audibly and visually directly with counterparts all around the globe, sharing files via

internet, electronic mail, and other communication utilities; all participants can look at the same drawing,

print, or specification so decision are make much faster. With electronic communication systems team

members can more in or out or a team or a team discussion as the issues warrant.

Self-Managed Teams

These teams consist of employees who are responsible for managing/performing tasks that reach and

satisfy internal and external customers. These are generally composed of ten to fifteen people who take on

the responsibilities of their former supervisors. Typically, this includes collective control over the pace of

work, determination of work assignments, organization of breaks, and collective choice of inspective

procedures. Fully self-managed teams even select their own members; have the members evaluate each

other's performance. AS a result, supervisory positions take on a decreased importance and may even be

eliminated. Self managed teams (SMT) lead to greater job satisfaction, higher productivity, positive attitude,

etc.

128

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

How to Make Effective Teams

In order to ensure effectiveness of teams, following measures need to be adopted:

· Provide "right" environment, reward system and communication system. The environment should be

conducive enough for the team members to be able to put in their best efforts and adjust easily.

· Develop task interdependence. Interdependence of tasks creates a sense of responsibility and help in

improving the team's performance.

· The size of the team should be good enough for optimal performance.

· External competition may also result in increased performance.

· Exclusivity of the team also results in higher performance from the team.

Guidelines for Team Training

Following are some guidelines for team trainers:

· The trainer needs to establish his or her own credibility in order for the team members to listen to him

or her.

· It is imperative that the team members be given proper orientation

· Clearly defined and achievable goals should be set for the teams.

· Defined procedures should be spelt out.

· The trainer should oversee the performance and help tackle deviations.

· The trainer should gradually end intervention and involvement and let teams work on their own.

REFERENCES

Luthans, Fred. (2005). Organizational Behaviour (Tenth Edition). United States: McGraw Hill Irwin.

Mejia, Gomez. Balkin, David & Cardy, Rober. (2006). Managing Human Resources (Fourth Edition).

India: Dorling Kidersley Pvt. Ltd., licensee of Pearson Education in South Asia.

Robbins, P., Stephen. (1996). Organizational Behaviour (Seventh Edition). India: Prentice Hall, Delhi.

Huczynski, Andrzej & Buchanan, David. (1991). Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text

(Second Edition). Prentice Hall. New York.

Moorhead, Gregory & Griffin, Ricky. (2001). Organizational Behaviour (First Edition). A.I.T.B.S.

Publishers & Distributors. Delhi.

FURTHER READING

Groups, Teams and Effectiveness:

www.csupomona.edu/~wcweber/301/301slide/ch14301/index.htm

Groups versus Teams: www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/6jan2118j2.htm

Groups and Teams: Richard Field, Management and Information Science:

www.bus.ualberta.ca/rfield/Groups%20and%20Teams.htm

Hawthorne Studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_studies

About Stanely Schacter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Schacter

About Mark Wallace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Wallace

129

Table of Contents: