MODULE1

GROUPPROCESSESI
NWORKORGANI
ZATI
ONS

AGROUPcanbedefi
nedastwoormor ei
ndi
vidual
s,engagedins
ociali
nter
act
ion,
fort
hepurposesofachi
evi
ng
somegoal
.I
nwor
ksett
ingst
hisgoal
isusual
l
ywor kr
elated,
suchasproduci
ngaproductors
ervi
ce.

Howev er
,groupsatwor kmayformmerel
ytodev el
opandmaint
ainsoci
alr
elat
ionshi
ps.Workgroupscanbe
ei
therf
ormal—putt ogetherbytheor
gani
zati
ontoperf
ormcert
aintas
ksandhandles peci
fi
cres
ponsibi
l
it
ies—or
i
nformal,
dev el
opi
ngnat ural
l
y.I
nfor
malworkgroupsmighti
ncl
udegroupsofworkerswhoregul
arl
ygettogether
af
terworktodiscusstheirj
obs.

Wher easgroupsareindiv
idual
sworkingtowardagoal,aTEAMcons i
stsofi
nter
dependentworker
swit
h
compl ementar
yskil
lsworkingtowar
das haredgoaloroutcome.Wewillbedi
scuss
inghist
ori
cal
andrecent
researchongrouppr ocesses
,andtheterm“ gr
oup”istypi
cal
lyused,
butsomeofthesegroupsarecl
ear
ly
“teams ”wi
thint
erdependencyands haredgoals.

GROUP TEAM

Anumberofpeopl
ewhoar econnect
edbys
ome Anumberofper
sonsas
soci
atedt
oget
heri
nwor
kor
shar
edact
ivi
ty
,int
eres
t,orqual
i
ty. act
iv
it
y.

Maynots
har
eacommongoal
. Shar
eacommoncaus
eorgoal
.

Speci
fi
crol
esanddut
iesar
enotas
signedt
o Speci
fi
ctas
ksar
eas
signedt
oeachi
ndi
vi
dual
.
i
ndivi
dual
s.

Member
sar
eindependent
. Member
sar
eint
erdependent
.

Member
smaynotk
noweachot
her
. Member
sar
eawar
eofeachot
her
'sweak
nes
ses
.

TYPESOFGROUPS

1.FORMALGROUPS-ar egovernedbypr escri

bedrul
esandr egul
ati
onsofconcernorgani
zati
on.Theyar
e
creat
edandmaintai
nedt ofulf
il
lspecif
icneedsortas
koft heorgani
zation.Thesegr
oupsarepermanentl
ik
etop
managementteam, workunitsi
ndi f
fer
entdepartmentsoftheorganizati
onortempor
aryli
ketheymadeforsome
speci
fi
ctas
ktoper f
ormandwhens uchtaskarecompletedtheydisappear.Fiv
emember smakingupa
counsel
i
ngteamar etheex ampleofformalgroup.

a)COMMANDGROUPS-ar especi
fi
edbytheor
gani
zat
ional
char
tandoft
encons
istofasuper
vis
orandt
he
subordinatest
hatreportt
othatsuper
vis
or.
Anexampl
eofacommandgr oupi
samar ketr
esear
chfi
rmCEOand
theresearchassociat
esunderhim.

b)TASKGROUP-cons ist
sofpeopl ewhowor ktogethertoachiev
eacommont ask.Member sarebr
ought
togethert
oaccompl i
shanar rowrangeofgoalswi t
hinas peci
fi
edtimeperi
od. Taskgroupar ealsocommonly
refer
redtoast askforces.Theorganizat
ionappointsmember sandassignsthegoalsandt ask stobe
accompl i
shed. Examplesofas si
gnedtasksarethedev el
opmentofanewpr oduct,t
heimpr ov ementofa
producti
onpr oces s
,ordes i
gningthesyl
labusunderthes emestersys
tem. Anothercommont askgroupisadhoc
commi tt
ees,projectgroup,ands t
andingcommi tt
ees.Adhoccommi t
teesareat emporarygr oupcreat
edto
res
olveas
peci
fi
ccompl
ai
ntordev
elopapr
oces
sthati
snor
mal
l
ydi
sbandedaf
tert
hegr
oupcompl
etest
he
assi
gnedt
ask.

c)FUNCTI ONALGROUP-i screatedbytheorganiz

ati
ontoaccompli
shspeci
fi
cgoalswit
hinanunspecif
iedt
ime
fr
ame. Thefunct
ional
groupremainsinexi
stenceaft
ertheachi
evementofcur
rentgoal
sandobject
iv
es.
Examplesofthefunct
ional
groupwoul dbeamar ket
ingdepart
ment,
acus t
omerservi
cedepart
ment,oran
accounti
ngdepartment.

2)INFORMALGROUPS-canhav eastr
onginfl
uenceonorganizat
ionst
hatcaneit
herbeposi
ti
veornegat
iv
e.
Forexample,employeeswhoformaninfor
malgroupcaneit
herdi s
cusshowtoimproveaproduct
ionpr
ocessor
howt ocr
eateshortcut
sthatj
eopardi
zequal
it
y.Theinf
ormalgroupcantakethefor
mofinter
estgr
oups,
fr
iendshi
pgroup,orrefer
encegroup.

I
nformal groupscr eatedont hebasisofvoluntar
yands pontaneousrequir
ement s.
Theygivethei
rmembera
senseofs ocialsatis
facti
on. Thesegroupsa r
egener all
ys malli
nsize,havi
ngindefi
nit
estr
ucture,communicat
ions
fl
owi nalldir
ectiones peci
all
yhor i
zontal
,authori
tyisgivenbyt hegroupmember s,gr
oupmember '
sbehav
iourare
regul
atedbyt heirownnor ms ,val
uesandbel i
efs.Threemember sofdiff
erentdepart
menthavinglunchwi
theach
otheraretheex ampl eofinformalgroup.

a)INTERESTGROUP-t heyusual
lyconti
nueov erti
meandmayl astlongerthangener alinf
ormalgr
oups.
Member soft
hei
nterestgroupmaynotbepa rtofthesameorganizati
onal depart
mentbutt heyarebound
togetherbysomeothercommoni nteres
t.Thegoalsandobject
ivesofgr oupinter
es t
sar especi
fi
ctoeachgr
oup
andmaynotber el
atedt oorgani
zati
onalgoal
sandobj ect
iv
es.Anex ampl eofaninterestgroupwouldbe
studentswhocomet ogethertof
ormas tudygroupforaspeci
fi
cclas s.

b)FRI
ENDSHI PGROUPS-ar eformedbymemberswhoenj
oys i
mil
ars oci
alacti
vi
ti
es,
pol
it
ical
beliefs
,rel
igi
ous
val
ues,orothercommonbonds .Membersenj
oyeachot
her
’scompanyandof t
enmeetaf
terworkt opart
ici
pat
e
i
ntheseactivi
ti
es.Forex
ample,agroupofempl
oyeeswhof
ormaf r
iendshi
pgr oupmayhaveay ogagroup,
Cri
cketplay
ergroup,Fansas
s oci
ati
ons.

c)REFERENCEGROUP-i saty peofgroupthatpeopleusetoevaluat

ethems el
ves.Themai nobj
ecti
veofthe
referencegroupistos eeksocialvali
dati
onandsocialcompari
son.Soci
al v
ali
dati
onall
owsi ndi
vi
dual
stojusti
fy
theiratt
it
udesandv al
ueswhiles oci
alcompari
sonhel psi
ndivi
dual
sevaluatet
heirownact i
onsbycomparing
thems elv
est oothers.
Ther ef
er encegrouphasas t
ronginfl
uenceonmember s ’
behavior.Suchgr
oupsare
formedv oluntar
il
y.Family,
fri
ends ,andrel
igi
ousaff
il
iati
onsarest
rongrefer
encegroupf ormosti
ndiv
idual
s.

FORMAL I
NFORMAL

Governedbypr
escri
bedr
ulesandr
egul
ati
onsof Cr
eat
edonthebas
isofv
olunt
aryands
pont
aneous
concernor
gani
zat
ion. r
equi
rement
s.

Createdandmaintai
nedt
oful
fi
l
lspeci
fi
cneedsort
ask Smal
li
nsi
ze;havi
ngindef
init
es t
ruct
ure;
oftheorgani
zat
ion. communi
cat
ionsf
lowinal
l di
rect
ion;

I
tispermanentli
ketopmanagementt eam, workuni
ts Author
it
yisgi
venbythegroupmembers
;group
i
ndiff
erentdepart
mentsoftheorganizat
ionor member'sbehavi
orar
eregul
atedbyt
hei
rownnorms
,
temporar
yli
ketheymadef orsomes peci
fictas
kto val
uesandbeli
efs
perf
orm.
Whydopeopl
ejoi
ningr
oups
?

PHASEI
NGROUPDEVELOPMENT

Br
uceTuckman(
1965)propos
edt hef
our-s
tagemodelcal
ledTuckman'
sStagesforagr
oup.
Tuck
man'
smodel
st
atest
hatt
hei
deal
groupdeci
sion-maki
ngproces
sshouldoccuri
nfours
tages:

•STAGEI
:FORMI
NG

I
tisthefi
rs
tstagei
ngroupdevelopmentpr
ocess.Uncert
aint
yaboutthegroup'
spur
pose,str
uct
ureand
l
eadershi
parethemainchar
acteri
st
icsoft
hiss
tage.Member sarepr
etendingt
ogetonorgetal
ongwit
hot
her
s.
Thisst
ageiscomplet
ewhenmember shav
ebegunt othi
nkofthemselvesasapar
tofagroup.

•STAGEI
I
:STORMI
NG

I
ntr
agroupconf
li
ctsar
ethees s
enti
alpar
tofthi
sstage.
Member sacceptt
heex i
stenceoft hegroup,butther
eis
r
esi
stancet
otheconstr
aint
sthatt
hegroupimposesonindi
vidual
i
ty.Ther
eisalsoconfli
ctov erwhowill
control
t
hegroup.Whenthiss
tageiscomplet
e,t
herewil
lbearelat
iv
elycl
earhier
archyofleadershipwithi
nthegroup.

•STAGEI
I
I:NORMI
NG

Atthi
sstagecl
oser el
ati
ons
hip,cohesi
veness
,andtrus
tdevel
opedamongthegr
oupmembers.
Thisstagei
s
complet
ewhent hegroupstruc
turesol
idi
fi
esandthegrouphasas
simi
l
atedacommonsetofexpect
ati
onsof
whatdefi
nescor
r ectmemberbehav i
our.

•STAGEI
V:PERFORMI
NG

Thegroupstr
uct
ureatt
hiss
tagei
sful
l
yfunct
ional
andaccept
edtoal
lmember
softhegroup.
Groupener
gyhas
movedfromgett
ingt
oknowandunderst
andseachot
hertoper
for
mingt
hetas
k.Tuckmanaddeda5thstage1
0
year
slater
:

•STAGEV:
ADJ
OURNI
NG

Act
uall
ythegroupdevel
opmentpr
ocessiscomplet
edonper f
ormingstage,whenthepart
icul
argr
oupsar
estat
doi
ngperfor
mingthanaut
omati
cal
l
ytheirdevel
opmentprocesscompleted.Thi
sstagei
sfortemporar
ygr
oups,
hav
ingcharact
eri
zedbyconcer
nwit
hwr appi
ngupacti
vit
iesrat
herthantaskperf
ormance.

E.
V.Schnei
derhol
dst
hati
nfor
mal
groupsar
emeantt
oaf
for
dthewor
ker
s:

(
a)r
eli
eff
rommonot
ony
,bor
edomandf
ati
gue (
d)oppor
tuni
tyf
ori
ndependence

(
b)oppor
tuni
tyt
oacqui
res
tat
us (
e)i
ncr
eas
eds
ecur
it
y

(
c)ani
ncr
eas
efl
owofemot
ional
res
pons
es

Beach(
201
3;i
nRobbi
ns,
2008)l
i
stsf
iv
ereas
onswhi
chcl
ai
ms,
arer
espons
ibl
efort
hef
ormat
ionofgr
oups
:

(
a)adv
ancet
hei
rowni
nter
est (
d)needf
oras
sis
tance/adv
iceonone'
sjob

(
b)s
ecur
it
yandpr
otect
ion (
e)communi
cat
ingi
nfor
mat
ion

(
c)compani
ons
hipandf
ri
ends
hip
Robbi
ns(
201
2)gi
vess
ixr
eas
onsofwhypeopl
ear
eint
hegr
oups
:

(
1)Secur
it
y (
4)Af
fi
li
ati
on

(
2)St
atus (
5)Power

(
3)Sel
f-
est
eem (
6)Goal
att
ainment

FACTORSAFFECTI
NGGROUPBEHAVI
OR

a.
GROUPMEMBERRESOURCES b.
STRUCTURE

-Member
s'k
nowl
edge,
abi
l
it
ies
,sk
il
ls -Gr
oups
ize,
rol
es,
nor
ms,
cohes
ivenes
s

andper
sonal
i
tychar
act
eri
st
ics

c.
GROUPPROCESSES d.
GROUPTASKS

-Deci
si
on-
mak
ing

ROLES

Withinwor kgr oups( andteams )

,member scanplayvariousroles,orpatter
nsofbehav i
or,
thatareadoptedon
thebas i
sofex pectati
onsaboutt hefuncti
onsofapart
icularpos i
ti
on.Gr ouprolesareimportantbecausethey
helpprovides omes pecif
icplanforbehavior
.Whenawor kerisplayi
ngapar ticul
arrolewit
hinagr oup,t
hat
personus uallyk nowss omethingabouttheresponsi
bi
li
t i
esandr equirementsoft herol
e,ortheroleexpectat
ions
.
I
nmos twor kgr oups, member sarequit
eawareofthev ari
ousex pectati
onsas sociat
edwi t
heachoft hediff
erent
posit
ionswi thint hegroup.

Asawor kgroupdev el
ops,thevar
iousmember slear
nt obecomer esponsi
bl
efordiffer
entaspectsofit
s
functi
oni
ng.Inot herwords,membersbegintoplaydif
ferentrol
eswithint
hewor kgroup.Thisprocesswhereby
groupmember slearnaboutandtakeonvari
ousdef i
nedr ol
esiscall
edrol
ediff
erenti
ati
on.Forexample,anew
workerwhoent ersawor kgroupmayi mmediat
elyfal
lintotherol
eofnov i
cework er
.Howev er,
thatpersonmay
l
aterdevel
opar eputat
ionforhavi
ngagoods enseofhumorandt husbegintoplaytherol
eofjok es
ter,
provi
ding
l
ev i
tywhensituationsgettootenseorwhenboredoms et
sin.

Onei mpor
tantr
olet
hati
sclear
lydi
ff
erenti
atedi
nmos twor
kgroupsi
sthatofl
eader
.Thel
eaderi
nafor
mal work
groupordepart
mentpl
aysanimportantpar
tindir
ecti
nggr
oupacti
vi
ti
es,bei
ngspokes
per
sonfort
hegroup,and
decidi
ngwhichcour
sesofacti
onthegroupwill
fol
low.

Thev ariousrolesinwor kgroupsar eoft

encreatedbasedonf actor
ss uchasposit
ionorformalj
obtit
le,st
atus
withinthegroup, thetaskstowhi chamemberi sas s
igned,orthepos sessi
onofsomepar ti
cul
arworksk i
l
lor
abili
ty.
Forex ampl e,employ eeswhoar edesi
gnatedasas si
stantsupervis
or,s
eniormechanic,or
communi cati
onss pecial
is
tper formspecif
icr
olesandengagei ncertainbehavi
orsconsi
stentwit
hthesejobti
tles
.
Althoughwor kerscanbedes i
gnatedasplayi
ngcer t
ainusualrol
eswi t
hintheworkgroup,theycanperfor
m
di
fferentfunctionalr
olesatdi ff
erentt
imes.Twoear l
yresear
chersout l
inedawiderangeofwor krol
es,whichthey
groupedi ntothreecategories(Benne&Sheat s, 1
948.)

TheVar
iousRol
esI
ndi
vi
dual
sPl
ayi
nWor
kGr
oups

1
)GROUPTASKROLES-i
srel
atedt
oget
ti
ngt
hej
obdone.
Groupt
askr
olesar
egi
vens
ucht
it
lesasi
nfor
mat
ion
gi
v er,
proceduralt
echni
ci
an,andeval
uat
or–
cri
ti
c.Forex
ample,amachi
ni
sti
nacar
dboardcontai
nerfact
orywho
outli
nesthestepsnecess
aryfort
heworkgr
ouptoconst
ructandas
sembleanewt
ypeofboxisplay
ingthe
proceduralt
echnici
anrol
e.

•I
NITI
ATOR–CONTRI
BUTOR:
Recommendsnewi
deasabout
,ornov
els
olut
ionst
o,apr
obl
em

•I
NFORMATI
ONSEEKER:
Emphas
izesget
ti
ngf
act
sandot
heri
nfor
mat
ionf
romot
her
s

•OPI
NIONSEEKER:
Sol
i
cit
sinput
sconcer
ningt
heat
ti
tudesorf
eel
i
ngsabouti
deasundercons
ider
ati
on

•I
NFORMATI
ONGI
VER:
Cont
ri
but
esr
elev
anti
nfor
mat
iont
ohel
pindeci
si
onmak
ing

•OPI
NIONGI
VER:
Prov
idesownopi
ni
onsandf
eel
i
ngs

•ELABORATOR:
Clar
if
iesandex
pandsont
hepoi
ntsmadebyot
her
s

•COORDI
NATOR:
Int
egr
atesi
nfor
mat
ionf
romt
hegr
oup

•ORI
ENTOR:
Gui
dest
hedi
scus
sionandk
eepsi
tont
het
opi
cwhent
hegr
oupdi
gres
ses

•EVALUATOR–CRI
TIC:
Usess
omes
etofs
tandar
dst
oev
aluat
ethegr
oup’
saccompl
i
shment
s

•ENERGI
ZER:
Sti
mul
atest
hegr
oupt
otak
eact
ion

•PROCEDURALTECHNI
CIAN:
Handl
esr
out
inet
ask
ssuchaspr
ovi
di
ngmat
eri
al
sors
uppl
i
es

•RECORDER:
Keepst
rackoft
hegr
oup’
sac
tiv
it
iesandt
akesmi
nut
es

2)GROUPBUI LDI
NGANDMAI NTENANCEROLES-deal wi
ththemaintenanceofi
nter
personalr
elat
ionsamong
groupmembersandi
ncl
udesuchr
olesasencour
ager
,harmoni
zer,
andcompr omi
ser
.Awor kerwhoplaysan
acti
vepar
tins
ettl
i
nganar
gumentbetweentwocowor
kersmaybet ak
ingont hehar
monizerrol
e.

•ENCOURAGER:
Encour
agesot
her
s’cont
ri
but
ions

•HARMONI
ZER:
Tri
est
ores
olv
econf
li
ctsbet
weengr
oupmember
s

•COMPROMI
SER:
Tri
est
opr
ovi
deconf
li
cti
ngmember
swi
thamut
ual
l
yagr
eeabl
esol
uti
on

•GATEKEEPER:
Regul
atest
hef
lowofcommuni
cat
ions
othata
llmember
scanhav
eas
ay

•STANDARDSETTER:
Set
sst
andar
dsordeadl
i
nesf
orgr
oupact
ions

•GROUPOBSERVER:
Mak
esobj
ect
iv
eobs
erv
ati
onsaboutt
het
oneoft
hegr
oupi
nter
act
ion

•FOLLOWER:
Accept
sthei
deasofot
her
sandgoesal
ongwi
thgr
oupmaj
ori
ty

3)SELF-CENTEREDROLES-i nvol
vess
atis
fyi
ngpersonal
rat
herthangroupgoal
s.Ti
tl
esoftheser
olesi
nclude
recogni
ti
onseeker
,aggress
or,
andhelpseeker.
Employeeswholooktoother
sforass
ist
anceincomplet
ingthei
r
ownwor kas
s i
gnmentsarepl
ayingt
hehelp-s
eekerr
ole.

I
thasbeensugges
tedthatwork
ersmayormaynotdef
inepr
osoci
albehavi
ors
—t heorgani
zat
ional
cit
iz
ens
hip
behav
ior
sthatwedi
scussedinChapt
er9—aspartoft
hei
rdef
inedworkrol
e,r
athert
hanv i
ewi
ngOCBs
(Organi
zati
onal Ci
ti
zenshi
pBehav ior
s)as“ext
rar
ole”behavior
s(Tepper,
Lockhart,
&Hoobl
er,2001).
Thefa
ct
thatt
hereares omanydi f
fer
entrol
esthatmemberscanpl ayinworkgroupfunct
ioni
ngi
l
lus
trat
esthecompl
exi
ty
oftheprocessesthatoccurdai
lyinworkgroups.

•AGGRESSOR:
Tri
est
opr
omot
eowns
tat
uswi
thi
ngr
oupbyat
tack
ingot
her
s

•BLOCKER:
Tri
est
obl
ockal
lgr
oupact
ionsandr
efus
est
ogoal
ongwi
thgr
oup

•RECOGNI
TIONSEEKER:
Tri
est
opl
ayupownachi
evement
stogetgr
oup’
sat
tent
ion

•SELF-
CONFESSOR:
Usesgr
oupdi
scus
siont
odeal
wit
hper
sonal
iss
ues

•PLAYBOY:
Engagesi
nhumorandi
rr
elev
antact
stodr
awat
tent
ionawayf
romt
het
ask
s

•DOMI
NATOR:
Att
empt
stomonopol
i
zet
hegr
oup

•HELPSEEKER:
Att
empt
stogai
nsy
mpat
hybyex
pres
singi
nsecur
it
yori
nadequacy

•SPECI
ALI
NTERESTPLEADER:
Arguesi
nces
sant
lyt
ofur
therowndes
ir
es

Iti
simport
anttomenti
onthats
ometimesworkersar
eunclearaboutt
her
equi
rement
soft
hev
ari
ousr
olest
hey
areexpect
edtopl
ayintheworkpl
ace.Thi
scanleadtor
oleambiguit
y.

•ROLEAMBIGUI
TY-i
sas enseofuncer
tai
ntyovert
herequi
rement
sofapart
icul
arr
oleanindivi
duali
sexpect
ed
topl
ay.
Rol
eambi
gui
ty
,li
kejobambiguit
y(seeChapter1
0),i
sanimpor
tants
ourceofworkplacestr
ess.

I
nor gani
zat
ions
,personsoft
enareexpect
edtoplaymor
ethanoneroleatat
ime.I
nsomecas es,t
hebehav
iors
ex
pect edofani
ndivi
dualduetoonerol
emaynotbeconsis
tentwi
ththeexpect
ati
onsconcer
ninganot
herr
ole.
I
nstancessuchasthesegiveri
set
oroleconf
li
ct.

•ROLECONFLI CT-confl
ictt
hatresul
tswhent
heex
pect
ati
onsas
soci
atedwi
thoner
olei
nter
fer
ewi
tht
he
expect
ati
onsconcer
ninganotherrol
e.

Roleconf l
icti
squi
tecommon, par
ti
cularlyi
npos i
tionsthatrequir
eworker
stobemember sofdif
ferentgroups
si
mul taneously
.Forexample,imagi
net hatyouar ethes upervi
sorofawor
kgroup.Oneofy ourr
olesinvol
ves
holdingthegrouptogetherandprotecti
ngt hei
nter es
tsofitsmember s
.However,
y ouareals
oamemberoft he
organizati
on’smanagementt eam,andi nthisr
oley ouareorderedtotr
ansf
eraverytal
entedandv er
ypopular
wor kgroupmember ,againstherwi
s hes,toanotherdepar t
ment .

Becauseyoucannotsati
sf
ythetwoincompati
bl
egoalsofholdingt
heteamt ogetherwhi
lecar
ryi
ngoutthe
organi
zat
ion’spl
ant
ot r
ansf
ertheworker,
youexperi
enceroleconf
li
ct,
anotherformofstr
essthatcanhav
e
negati
veeffect
sonj
obs at
is
facti
on,
perfor
mance,andment alandphysi
cal
wel l
-being.

NORMS-ar
ether
ulest
hatgr
oupsadoptt
oindi
cat
eappr
opr
iat
eandi
nappr
opr
iat
ebehav
iorf
ormember
s.

Wor
kgroupscont
ainvar
iousmember
s,eachpl
ayi
ngdi
ff
erentr
oles
,butal
lmember
s,r
egar
dles
soft
hei
rrol
e,
mus
tadheret
ocert
aingroupr
ules
.

Groupnormscanbef or
malizedaswri
tt
enwor kr
ules,butar
emostcommonlyinf
ormalandunrecorded.
Norms
cangovernanyworkacti
vit
y, i
ncl
udi
ngthespeedwithwhichaper
sonshouldperf
ormaj ob,pr
opermodesof
dress
,acceptabl
etopi
csforgroupconv
ersat
ion,andevenwhosit
swhereintheemployeelunchr
oom.
Accordi
ngtoFeldman( 1984),normsdev el
opinanumberofway s.
Theycancomefromexpl
ici
tst
atement
s
madebys uperv
isorsorcoworkers.Forexample,
as uper
vi
sormighttel
lgr
oupmembers,“
Noonegoeshome
unt
ilt
heworkareai sspotl
essl
yclean.”Thisl
eadstoanormthatal
lworker
sstopwor
k i
ng15minut
esbefor
e
qui
tt
ingti
met ocleanupt heworkarea.

Groupleadersorpower f
ulgr oupmember sof t
enpl ayanimportantroleins uchnormformation.Normscanal s
o
evolv
ef r
omthegr oup’shistory. Forexampl e,ifacertainworkprocedurel eadstoadisastr
ousout come, t
he
groupmaypl aceabanoni tsus e. I
notherins t
ances ,normsmaybecar ri
edov erfr
ompas tsituati
ons.Whena
memberchangesgr oups,nor msf r
omt heol dgroupmaybei mportedt othenewone. Forex ample, asal
es
supervi
sorwast r
ansferr
edf romt hecorporateof f
icetoar egi
onalsalesof f
ice.Onherfi
rstdayinthenewof f
ice,
shecomment edonthecas ual dres sofempl oyeesbys ayi
ng,“Atthecor porat
eoffi
ce,menal way swearsuit
sand
ti
esandwomenal way swears k i
rtsordress es.”Fromt henextdayon, anewdr esscodeofmor eformalat
ti
re
developed.

Nor
mss
erv
emanyi
mpor
tantpur
pos
esf
orgr
oups
.

•Fir
standforemost
,theyareestabl
is
hedtohelpthegr
oupsurvi
ve.Agroupmustbeabl
etoproduceenoughto
ensuretheeconomicsuccessofthegroupandtheor
gani
zat
ion.Ther
efore,
somenormswil
ldevel
optofaci
l
it
ate
groupproducti
on.

•Ontheotherhand,i
fmembersfeel
thatproduct
ionrat
esar
etoohi
ghandwi
l
lpos
sibl
yleadt
olay
off
s,nor
mst
o
res
tri
ctgr
oupoutput(cal
l
ed“
ratesett
ing”)mayaris
e.

Normscanal sodevelopthathel
pcommi tworkgroupmember stoproducinghigher-
quali
typr
oduct
sorservi
ces
,
andnormscanev endev elopinor
gani
zationsandgroupsthatcompelwork er
stobeinnovati
veand
“ent
repreneuri
al
”(Anderson&Wes t
,1998; Russel
l&Russell
,1992).Workgroupscandev el
opnormsthatr
esul
t
i
nhighlevelsofposi
ti
v eworkbehavi
ors,suchasorgani
zati
onalci
ti
zenshipbehav i
or(Er
hart&Naumann,2004),
butnormsencouragingcounterpr
oducti
vewor kbehavi
orscanalsooccur(Fox&Spect or,
2005).

Normsalsohel pi
ncreasethepr
edict
abi
lityofmembers’behavi
or.Forexampl
e,nor
msr egardingspeak
ingturns
andthelengthofti
met hatonemayholdt hefl
oori
ngroupmeetings ,
aswell
asnormsregardingthestr
uctur
e
andcontentofmeetings,mayeas et
heflowofthemeetingsandav oi
dembarras
sment(Nieder man&Volkema,
1999).Researcher
shav eevenstudi
edthenormsthatev ol
vei
nonlinecommunicat
ionandchatnet wor
ks(Dietz
-
Uhler
,Bishop-Clar
k,&Howar d,2005).

Fi
nall
y,nor
mspr ov
ideas enseofidenti
tyfort
hegr oupbygi
ving 
member sachancetoex
pressthei
rshar
ed
val
uesandbeli
efs.Forexample,i
fanadv ert
is
ingagencybeli
evest
hattheyar
eresponsi
bl
eforsetti
ngadver
ti
si
ng
tr
ends,anormforproducingadvert
isementsthatareuni
queornovel
maydev el
op.

I
nsummary,bothrol
esandnor mshel
ppr ovi
deastr
uctur
eandplanforgr
oupmembers ’
behav i
or.
Theyplayan
i
mport
antparti
nregul
ati
nggroupacti
vit
iesandinhel
pi
nggroupmember stoachi
evesharedgoals
.Inaddi
ti
on,
nor
msand,tosomeex t
ent,
rolesprov
ides omeoft
hefoundat
ionofacompany’sor
ganizat
ional
cult
ure.

ORGANI
ZATI
ONALSOCI
ALI
ZATI
ON:
LEARNI
NGGROUPROLESANDNORMS

Acri
ti
calareaofr
esear
cht
hathasr
ecei
vedagr
eatdeal
ofat
tent
ionf
romI
/Ops
ychol
ogi
st
sisor
gani
zat
ional
soci
al
iz
ation.

•ORGANIZATIONALSOCIALI
ZATI
ON-i st
hepr
oces
sbywhi
chnewempl
oyeesl
ear
ngr
oupr
olesandnor
ms
anddev
elopspeci
fi
cwor
kskil
l
sandabi
l
it
ies
.
Compani
est
odayof
tenr
efert
oor
gani
zat
ional
soci
al
iz
ati
onast
he“
onboar
dingpr
oces
s”(
Bauer&Er
dogan,
201
1).

Or
gani
zat
ional
soci
al
iz
ati
oni
ncl
udest
hreei
mpor
tantpr
oces
ses
:

(
a)t
hedev
elopmentofs
peci
fi
cwor
ksk
il
lsandabi
l
it
ies
,

(
b)t
heacqui
si
ti
onofas
etofappr
opr
iat
erol
ebehav
ior
s,and

(
c)adj
ust
mentt
othewor
kgr
oup’
snor
msandv
alues
.

Thefir
s tproces
s —learningspeci
fi
cworkski
ll
sandabil
i
ti
es—ist hemaingoalofper
s onnel
trai
ni
ng.
Theothert
wo
processes—t heacquisit
ionofrol
esandrol
ebehavi
orsandthelearni
ngofgroupnorms —areofpar
ti
cul
ari
nter
est
here.Newempl oyeeslearnaboutgr
ouprol
esandnormsinthes amewaythattheylearnnewjobski
l
ls,
specif
icall
ybyobs ervi
ngandi mit
ati
ngthebehav
ior
sofothers
.

Newcomer smayl ookt oes t

abli
shedwor ker
sasrolemodel sandt r
ytocopyt heirsucces sfulworkbehavi
or s
(Louis,Posner,&Powel l,1983).Forexample,anovicetri
alatt
or neymaywat cht hewayt hatas easoneds enior
partnerhandlesher s
elfincourtandatf i
rmmeetingstolearnaboutt heex pectedr olebehav ior
sfort
hefir
m’ s
succes sf
ul at
torney s.Newempl oyeesmaya l
solearnaboutgr oupnor msbybei ngr ei
nforcedforperf
orming
appropriatebehav iorsandbei ngpunishedfori
nappropriateacti
ons .Anews al
es per s
oninabus ycl
othi
ngs tore
mayl earnaboutnor msf orappropriat
eemployeedressandt heus ual
procedur esf orhandlingimpati
ent
customer sthroughr eceivingareinfor
cingsmil
eandnod, oradis appr
ovingfrown, fr
omt hes al
esmanager .

Typical
ly
,or
gani
zati
onalsoci
al
iz
ati
onoccursi
nstages,asonemovesfr
ombeinganewcomert
oaf
ull
y
functi
oni
ngandcontr
ibut
ingmemberoftheworkgroup(Wanous,
Reicher
s,&Mali
k,1
984).

Onemodel
out
li
nest
hrees
tagesi
nthes
oci
al
iz
ati
onofnewempl
oyees(
Fel
dman,
1976a,
1976b)
.

1)Thefir
sti
sANTI CI
PATORYSOCI ALIZATI
ON.Her
enewcomersdevel
opas etofreal
i
sti
cex
pectat
ionscon-
cerni
ngthejobandtheorgani
zat
ionanddet
ermi
nei
ftheor
gani
zat
ionwi
llpr
ov i
detheri
ghtmatchwi
ththei
r
abil
it
ies
,needs,andval
ues.

2)Thes econdstageintheprocessisACCOMMODATI ON. I

nthi
sst
age,newemployeeslearnaboutthev ar
ious
rol
esthatworkgroupmember spl
ayandabouttheirownspeci
fi
crol
esint
hegroup.Theyalsobeginto“learnthe
ropes
”ast heydiscoveri
mpor t
antworkgroupnormsandstandar
ds.I
nthi
ssecondstage,
t henewcomer sbegin
todevel
opi nt
erpersonal
rel
ati
onshipswit
hothergroupmembers.

3)Inthethi
rdstage,ROLEMANAGEMENT, newcomer
smak ethetransi
ti
ontoregul
armembersori
nsi
der
s,
mas t
eri
ngthetasksandrol
estheymustper
form.Ast
heymov ethroughthi
sstage,t
heyev
entual
lyhav
ea
thor
oughk nowledgeofal
lf
acetsofwor
kgroupnormsandoperati
ons.

Al
thoughallnewempl oyeesareli
kel
ytopassthrought hesames tagesintheorgani
zati
onalsoci
ali
zat
ionpr ocess,
r
esearchindi
catesthatemployeesmaybes oci
ali
z edatdiff
erentr
ates ,
dependingonthecharacter
ist
icsoft he
workersandofthewor kenvi
ronment(Rei
chers,
1 987;Taormi na,
2009) .
Forexample,
wor k
erswhoar eforcedt o
movefromanol d,establ
i
shedwor kgr
oupororgani zat
iontoanews ett
ingbecauseofl
ayoffsorgeographical
movesmayhav eamor edif
fi
cultt
imebecomings ocial
i
z edthanwork er
swhov olunt
ari
l
ymak ethemov e.

Resear
chha
sclear
lys
hownthatsuper
vi
sor
sandcowor ker
spl
ayani
mport
antpar
tinthesucces
sful
soci
al
izat
ion
ofnewempl
oyeesbyest
abl
i
shingposi
ti
ver
elat
ions
hipsandment
ori
ngnewcomer
s( Major
,Kozl
owski
,Chao,&
Gar
dner,1
995; Ost
rof
f&Kozlowski
,1993)
.Researchsuggestst
hatst
ruct
uredandregul
arsoci
al
izati
ont
hat
f
ocusesonemployees
’jobl
earni
ngandcar
eerprogres
s i
onisbet
tert
hanless-
syst
ematicsoci
al
iz
ationpr
oces
ses
(
Cable&Parsons,
2001 )
.

Theles sonisthatnewempl oy ees ociali

zati
onshouldbeplannedands ystematic—par tofanint
egrat
ed
employ eeorientati
onandt r
ainingpr ogram. Work
erscanalsoplayanactiv
epar tintheirownsocial
i
zation
(Ashford&Bl ack ,
1996; Saks&As hfort
h, 1
997).Forexample,newcomeratti
tudesandwi l
li
ngnesstobec omea
partofthenewwor kgr
oupcanpl ayani mport
antrol
einhowqui ckl
yands moothlys ocial
i
zati
onoccurs .
Itmay
als
obet hecas ethatpr
iorwor kex perienceandper s
onali
tycharact
eri
st
icsofwor kersmayaf f
ectsociali
zati
on
rat
es( Adkins,1995; Ostr
off&Koz lows ki,
1992).

Organizati
onscanal sogreatl
yfacil
i
tatethesociali
zationofnewempl oyees( Ashfor
th&Sak s,1996) .Good
employeeor i
entat
ionandt rai
ningprogramsar eess entialt
othepr oces s
,asar ethewor kgroup’sopennes sand
will
i
ngnes stowelcomenewmember s.Onetechniquef orencouragingempl oyees ociali
zati
onistolink
newcomer swit
hes tabl
i
shed, knowledgeablewor k
er s,anappr oachs imil
artothement ori
ngconceptdi s
cus s
ed
i
nChapt er7.Themor equickl
ynewempl oyeesares ociali
zedintothewor kgroupandor gani
zation,thefaster
theywil
l becomepr oducti
v eandvaluablewor k
ers.Res earchalsoindicatesthatef f
ectivesocial
izat
ionisrelated
toreducedwor kstress,r
eductionsinemploy eeturnov errat
es,increasedor ganizat
ionalcommi tment ,and
employeecar eersuccess.

BASI
CGROUPPROCESSES

Severalbasi
csocialprocessesthatoccurinall
workgroupshelptoholdthegroupstogether,r
egul
ategroup
behavior,
coordinat
egr oupacti
vit
ies,andsti
mulateact
ionbygr oupmember s.I
nthefol
lowingsect
ionwewi l
l
consi
derfiveofthesepr ocess
es:conformity
,groupeff
icacy,cohesi
veness,
cooperati
on,andcompet i
ti
on.Afi
nal
groupprocess,confl
ict,wil
lbeconsideredunderaseparateheadingbecauseofi
tsimportance.

1
)CONFORMI
TY-i
sthepr
oces
sofadher
ingt
ogr
oupnor
ms.

Becausethesenormsar esoimpor tanttoagroup’sidenti

tyandacti
vit
ies,
groupsex ertcons i
derablepressureon
member stofol
l
owt hem. Viol
ati
oncanr es
ulti
ns ubtl
eorov er
tpress
uretocompl ywithther ul
es ,whichca ntak
e
theformofalookofdisapproval,verbalcr
it
ici
sm, ori
solat
ionoftheoff
endingindi
vidual(gi
v i
ngt hepers onthe
“si
lentt
reat
ment”).Oncet heviolatorconf
ormst othenorm, t
hepressurei
sremov ed,andt heper sonisagain
i
ncludedinnormalgroupact i
vi
ties.General
ly,confor
mitytonormsisverystr
ongandhel psmai ntai
nor derand
unif
ormit
yinthegroup’sbehav i
or .

Becaus epressuretoconf ormtogroupnormsissos tr

ong, weneedt oconsi
derthecircums t
ancesinwhichan
i
ndividualmightchoos etov i
olat
eanor m.Usual
ly
, someonewi ll
notconfor
mt oagr oupnor mift
heindi
vidual
’
s
goalsarediff
erentfromt hoseofthegroup.Forexampl e,i
maginethatamanufactur
inggr ouphasanormof
st
eadybutl es s
-than-optimalproducti
on.I
fawork erwithi
nthegroupwantstobenot icedbymanagementasan
exceptional
lyhardwor kerwhowoul dbeagoodcandi dateforapromoti
ontoas upervisor
ypos i
ti
on,t
hatpers
on
mightbr eakthegroup’spr oduct
ionrat
enorm.

Ofcourse,t
hegr oupwill
exertpressur
eina neffor
ttogetthe“ ratebuster
”toconform.Ext
remeandr epeated
cas
esofnor mv i
olati
onmayev entuall
yleadtoos t
racis
mf romt hegroup(Scott,
Mi t
chel
l,
&Bi r
nbaum, 1981).
An
i
ndi
vidualmightalsoresi
stthepressuretoconformt odemons trat
ethatthememberbel i
evesthatthenormis
i
ncorr
ectands houldnotbef ol
l
owed( Hack man, 1
992) .Generall
y,member swhohav emorepowerandi nfl
uence
i
nthegroup,suchast heleader,wil
lhaveabetterchanceofr esisti
ngthegroup’sconf
ormit
ypr es
sureand
per
suadingthegr ouptochangeorel i
minat
ethenor m.
Also,iftheviol
atorhasapas thi
stor
yofbei nga“ good,”conformi
ngmember ,thenonconf
ormit
ywi l
lbet ol
erated
mor eandhav eabet t
erchanceofbei ngacceptedbyt hegroupthanifi
ti
sdonebyamemberk nownf orrepeat ed
normv i
olat
ions(Feldman, 1
984).Althoughconf ormi
ngt ogroupnormsisty
pical
lyf
uncti
onali
nawor ks ett
ing,in
somei ns t
ancesconf or
mi t
ypressur
emayat t
emptt ogetmember st
oengageinundesir
abl
e,counterproductiv
e,
orev enunet hi
calbehavior.
Inaddit
ionthereisev i
dencethatconfor
mityamongworkgroupmember scan
somet imess ti
fl
eindivi
duali
nnovati
onandcr eativi
ty(Pech,2001).

2)COHESI
VENESS-r
efer
ssi
mpl
ytot
heamountordegr
eeofat
tr
act
ionamonggr
oupmember
s.

Anotherbasicgroupprocess ,
cohesiv
enes s,i
sli
kethesoci
al “
glue”thathol
dspeopletogetheri
ngroups.I
tis
cohesi
v enes
sthatexplainstheteams pi
ri
tthatmanywor kgroupspos ses
s.I
tisgenerall
yassumedthatcohesi
ve
groupsaremor esati
sfi
edandmor eproducti
vethannoncohesivegroupsbecausetheirmemberstendtoint
eract
more,parti
ci
patemor efull
yingroupactivi
ti
es,andacceptandwor ktowardthegroups’goal
s(Cart
wright
,1968;
Hare,1976).

I
nf act,however,al
thoughcohes i
v egroupsar eus ual
lymor es ati
s f
iedthannon- cohes i
vegroups,therelati
onshi
p
betweencohes ivenessandpr oductivi
tyisr atherweak( Gull
y ,Dev i
ne, &Whi tney,1995) .
Thatisbecaus e
typical
ly,f
oracohes i
vegroupt obepr oduct i
ve,thereasonf orthecohes i
venessmus tbewor kr
elated(Ev ans&
Dion, 1
991 ;Kl
ein&Mul vey,1995). Forex ampl e,groupswi t
hs t
rong, work-r
elatednor ms,suchasthewi ll
ingnes
s
towor koverti
meandanor mofwor kerstak i
ngper sonalrespons ibi
lit
yfordoingagoodj ob,hadhighergr oup
performancethanwor kteamswi thouts uchs tr
ongwor k-rel
at ednor ms(Langf r
ed,1 998).However ,agroupmay
becohes iveyethaveasagoal t
odoasl it
tlewor kaspos sibl
e. Inthiscase,cohes i
venes sishi
ghandgr oup
sati
s f
acti
onmaybehi gh,butproduct i
vit
yi sli
k el
ytobev eryl ow( Tz i
ner,
1982) .

I
nav eryinterest
ingstudyofU.S.andHongKongbankempl oyees,itwasf oundt hatincr
easesinj
obcompl ex
it
y
andaut onomy —t wocri
ti
cal
,motivat
ingel
ementsofthejobcharacteristi
csmodel (
seeChapt er8)
—l edto
great
ercohes iv
enes samongwor kgroupmembers.Thiscohes i
venes s,i
nturn,caus edthegroupstobemor e
productive(Man&Lam, 2003).As i
mpleexpl
anat
ionisthatthechallengesoft hemor ecompl ext
asksandthe
group’sincr
easedr esponsi
bi
li
ty/
autonomycausedthegroupt ocomet ogetherinawayt hatmot i
vatedhi
gher
l
ev el
sofper f
ormance.

Becausegroupcohesi
venes
sist
heoret
ical
lyli
nkedtomembers ati
sfacti
onand,undercer
tai
ncir
cumstanc
es,
pr
oductivi
ty,
ther
ehasbeenconsi
der
ableresearchonthefact
orsthatincreas
egroupcohesi
veness.
Themost
i
mpor t
antofthes
efact
orsar
ethesi
zeofthegr oup,t
heequali
tyofst
at usofmembers,memberstabi
l
it
y,member
si
milar
it
y,andtheexi
st
enceofacommont hreatorenemy.

Gener all
y,thesmall
erthegr oup,t
hemor ec ohesiveandt hemoresatis-
fi
edit
smembers.Thismak essense,
becaus es mall
groupsoffermanymor echancest oint
eractwit
hmember sandtof
ormclosert
iesthandolarge
groups( Forsyt
h,2006) .
Ass mal
lerbusi
nes sesbecomel arger
,gai
ningmor eandmoreemployees,cohesi
veness
oftendeclines.Ol
derwor kersoft
enl amentthes t
rongcohes i
venes
soft heearl
i
er,
small
erworkgroup( “I
ntheol
d
day situsedtobelikeafami l
yaroundher e”)
. Theref
ore,onewaytor egai
nsomeofthecohesive-
nes swouldbe
tobr eakthelar
gegroupi ntosmallerworkteams .

Themoreequi valentthes tat

usofgroupmember s,general
l
yt hegr eaterthecohes i
veness( Cartwri
ght,1968).
Whenas tatushierarchyex is
ts,
thelower-stat
usmember smayf eelresentful
ofthoseofhi ghers t
atus,whic
h
l
eadstodisharmony . Conv er
sel
y,thehigher-s
tat
usmember smayt r
yt ousetheirauthori
tytodi r
ectorcontrolt
he
act
iv
it
iesofthelower -statusmember s,whichcanals
oerodegr oupcohes i
veness.Manyt eamappr oaches,such
asj
obenrichment ,attemptt oel
iminat
es t
atusdif
fer
encesingr oupst oincreasecohes i
venes s
. Forexample,in
manyjobenr i
chmentpr ogramsteammember sareal
lgiv
ent hes amewor kclassi
fi
cationandj obtit
le.
Thes tabil
i
tyofgroupmember shi
pcanalsohav eposi
ti
veeffect
soncohesi
veness(For
syt
h,2006).Gener
all
y,
themor es t
abl
ethemember ship,t
hemor eti
memember shavetodevel
opstr
ongtieswi
thoneanot
her.New
member smayoftendi
sruptgroupharmonybecaus et
heyar eunawar
eofgroupnormsandmayunwi t
ti
ngl
y
viol
atethemast heytr
ytolear
nt heropes
. Thus,hi
ghrat
esofmembert ur
noverandthepres
enceofmanynew
member scanbedetri
mentalt
ogr oupcohes i
venes
s.

•WE–THEYFEELING-int
ragr
oupcohes
ivenes
scr
eat
edbyt
heex
ist
enceofacommont
hreat
,whi
chi
s
ty
pical
l
yanot
hergr
oup.

Anotherfactorthataffectsgr oupcohes i
v enessisthesimil
ari
tyofgroupmember s.
Themor esimil
arthe
charact
erist
icsofthegr oupmember s,themor ecohesi
vethegr oupisli
kel
ytobe. I
fmember shaves i
mil
ar
backgrounds ,education, andatti
tudes,itisreasonabl
etoas sumet hatt
heywi l
ldevel
opcloserti
estoone
another.Yearsofres earchongr ouppr oces sesindi
catethatmembers i
mil
ari
tyisaverypowerfulf
orcein
determini
ngs ocialt
ies; wet endtobeat tract
edt o,andestabl
ishcloserel
ati
onshipswit
h,personswhoar es
imi
l
ar
tous(Forsyth,2006; Jack sonetal.
,1991 ).

I
tisimport
anttoemphasi
ze,however
,thatsi
milar
it
yofgroupmember scanli
mitagr
oup’spotenti
alt
obecr
eat
ive
andtoinnovat
e,assi
mil
armembersmayt endto“ t
hinkal
ik
e.”Res
earchhasemphas i
zedthatgroupmember
div
ersi
tycanleadtomorecr
eati
ve,i
nnovati
ve,andperhapsmoreproducti
veworkgr
oups(Rogelberg&Rumery
,
1996;Wat s
on,Kumar,&Michael
sen,1993).

Thepres
enceofanexter
nalt
hreatorenemycanlikewisei
ncreas
et hecohesi
venessofaworkgroup(Shaw,
1981)
.Whenagr oupper
cei
vesitsel
fasunderat
tack,themember stendtopul
ltoget
her.
Cohesivenessoft
his
typei
soft
enref
erredt
oasthewe–t heyf
eel
ing(“
We’ rethegoodguy s,t
hey’r
ethebadguy s
”).

Often,small
,up-and- comingcompani eswi l
lcharact eri
zel
argecompet i
torcompaniesas“threateni
ng”orev en
“evil
,
”inanef f
orttoincreasecohes i
venes sofwor kersastheytrytoov ercomet heominousgiantcompanyt hat
thr
eatensthesmal l
ercompany ’s, andi t
swor k er
s’,veryexi
stence.Thes mal l
ercompanyishopingt hatthe
i
ncreasedcohes i
venes swill
resultingr eat
erpr oductivit
yasthewor k
er spulltoget
heri
nanef forttobeatthe
competiti
on.Unfortunatel
y,wit
hinor ganiz
ations,thi
swe–t heyfeeli
ngof tendev el
opsbetweent hewor k
ersand
management .Thiscanl eadtoincr easedcohes i
venes swit
hinthewor kgr oupbutcanbedisruptivein
coordi
natedeffort
st oachieveorgani zati
onal goal
sift heworkersperceivemanagementast heenemy .

I
ns um, all
thesef
actorstendtoincreas egroupcohes i
veness,whichcanintur
nber el
atedtoimprovedwor k
outcomes ,par
ti
cular
lyi
ncr eas
edlev elsofmembers at
isf
acti
on,organi
zat
ionalcommitment,andreducedr at
esof
absenteeismandt ur
nov er(Wech, Mos sholder
,Steel,
&Bennet t,
1998).Moreover,r
egardl
essoftheact ual
rel
ati
ons hi
pbetweengr oupcohes ivenessandgr oupproductiv
it
y,manymanager sbeli
evethatcohesi
venes sis
cri
ti
calforworkgroups uccess.And, i
fpartofthereasonfortheworkgroup’scohesiv
enessistaskrel
ated,then
cohesi
v egroupsareusual l
yhi
gh- performinggroups(Carl
ess&DePaol a,2000; Mull
en&Copper ,1994) .

3)GROUPEFFICACY-ist
hegroup’
sshar
edbel
i
efsi
nthei
rabi
l
it
ytoengagei
ncour
sesofact
iont
hatwi
l
lleadt
o
desi
redout
comes(
Bandur
a,1
997).

I
nt hesamewaythati
ndividual
workerscanpossessas ens
eofs el
f-eff
icacy,aswes awinourdis
cussi
onof
copingwit
hstr
ess(Chapter10),gr
oupscanhaveacol l
ecti
vesenseofef fi
cacy .
Resear
chhasdemons tr
atedt
hat
groupmembers’l
evelsofindi
vi
dualsel
f-ef
fi
cacyhelpcontr
ibutetogroupef f
icacy,
whichintur
ncanhav ea
pos i
ti
vei
mpactonthegroup’scohesi
venessandont hei
rproducti
vi
ty(Bak er
, 2001;
Pescosoli
do,2003).

Amet
a-anal
ysi
sshowedamoder
atel
yst
rongr
elat
ions
hipbet
weengr
oup/
teamef
fi
cacyandper
for
mance(
Gul
l
y,
I
ncalcaterr
a,Joshi
,&Beaubein2002) .
Impor
tantl
y,gr
oupef fi
cacylevelsseemt obeabet t
erpredi
ctorofgr
oup
per
formancet hanthes umofi
ndiv
idualmembers’sel
f-effi
cacy(Lent,Schmi dt
,&Schmi dt
,2006).Thereisal
so
someev idencethatgroupef
fi
cacypredi
ctsl
evel
sofjobs ati
sfact
ionandor gani
zati
onalcommi t
ment,andthat
l
eaderscanhav eani mport
anti
mpactondevelopi
nggr oupmember s
’s enseofcol
lect
iv
eef f
icacy(
Wal umbwa,
Wang, Lawler,&Shi,2004).

4)COOPERATI ONi scri

ti
caltotheef f
ect
ivefuncti
oningofwor kgroups/
teamsandor gani
zations .
Cons i
derthr ee
empl oy eesi
nabook s t
oreasanex ample.Theempl oy eest aketur
nsperformi ngthetasksthatt hei
rjobsrequire.
Atanyt ime,t
woar eatthefr
ontdes k,ser
vingcus t
omer s .Thethir
dworkeri sopeningbox esofbook s,pr
ici
ng
them, andput ti
ngthemont heappr opri
ateshelves.Thewor ker
sarecoor dinati
ngtheireff
ortsinanat temptto
meett heorgani
zati
onalgoalsofsell
ingbooksandpr ovidi
nggoodcus t
omers ervi
ce.Ifoneoft hewor ker
satt he
frontdes kgoesonal unchbreak ,
thepersons tocki
ngs hel vesmovestothef ronttohelpcus t
omer s.I
fan
empl oy eedoesnotk nowtheans wertoacus tomer’
sques t
ion,
hemayt ur ntoamor eknowledgeabl eand
ex peri
encedcowor kerforassi
stance.Thes t
oreempl oy eesalsocoordi
nat etheirti
meof f
,dev elopingamut uall
y
agr eeablevacati
onschedule.

Forthemos tpart
,suchcooperati
onamongwor kgroupmember sist
herul
erat
hert
hantheex cept
ion,chi
efl
y
becauseitisoft
endiff
icul
ttoachiev
ewor kgoalsalone.
Aslongaswor k
ershol
dtot
hesamegoal s,theywil
lusu-
all
ycooperatewithoneanother.Employeesmightalsogooutofthei
rwaytohel
peachotherbecaus eoft
he
reci
proci
tyrule(
Gouldner,1960),whichisi
ll
ustr
atedbythesayi
ngs ,
“Onegoodtur
ndeservesanother,”a
nd“ Do
untoothersasyouwoul dhavethemdount oy ou.
”

•RECI
PROCI
TYRULE-i
sthet
endencyf
orper
sonst
opaybackt
hos
etowhomt
heyar
eindebt
edf
oras
sis
tance.

Thusworkershel
peachotherbecausetheybeli
evet
hatwhentheyneedassi
stance,
theywil
lbepai
dbackin
ki
nd.Therecipr
oci
tyr
ulei
sv er
ystrong,andpeopl
edoindeedt
endtoreci
procatehel
pingbehav
ior
s(Ei
senber
ger
,
Armel
i,Rexwink
el,
Lynch,
&Rhoades ,2001)
.

Oneel
ementt
hathel
psi
ncr
eas
ecooper
ati
onamongwor
kgr
oupmember
sist
hedegr
eeoft
aski
nter
dependence.

•TASKI NTERDEPENDENCE-i st hedegreet owhichanindividual

worker
’staskperf
ormancedependsonthe
eff
ortsorski
llsofothers(
Campion, Meds ker,&Higgs,1993; Somech,Des i
vi
lya,&Li
dogoster
,2009).I
nlar
ge
part,
iti
staskinterdependencethatdif
ferenti
ateswork“groups ”fr
omwor k“teams.
”Researchhasshownthat
taskint
erdependencef ost
erspositi
vefeeli
ngsaboutcowor kersandincr
easescooperat
iv
ebehav i
ori
nwor k
groupsandt eams( vanderVegt,Emans ,&v andeVlier
t,1998, 2000;Wageman&Bak er,
1997).

Groupmember salsocooperat
ebecaus eachi
evi
ngorganizat
ionalgoal
scanleadtopay off
sforthei
ndivi
dual
workersi
ntermsofraises
,bonus es ,
andpromoti
ons.This
, i
nturn,
canincreasegroupmembers at
isf
acti
onand
subsequentper
formance(consistentwitht
hePort
er–Lawlermodel i
ntr
oducedinChapt er9)(
Alper,
Tjosvol
d,&
Law,2000; Tj
osvol
d, 1
998b) .
Mor eover
,whenwork-rel
atedrewardsarebasedonef fect
iv
egroupper f
ormance,
suchasinthegainshar
ingprogramsdi scuss
edinChapter9,ithel
psfostercooperat
ionamongwor kgroup
member s.

Al
thoughthepr
esenceofcooper
ati
vegroupmembersof
tenhel
psfacil
it
ateworkper
for
mance,
ther
ear
e
i
nstanceswher
eworkgroupmembersrefuset
ocooper
ateand“pul
lthei
rload.
”

•SOCIALLOAFING-isaphenomenonwher
ebyi
ndi
vi
dual
swor
kingi
nagr
oupputf
ort
hles
sef
for
tthanwhen
work
ingal
one(Lat
ane,Wi
ll
i
ams ,
&Harki
ns,1
979)
.
Researchha sshownthatsociall
oafi
ngoccursmos tfr
equentl
ywhenwor ker
sbeli
evethattheiri
ndivi
dual
perf
ormanceorcont r
ibut
ionwi l
lnotbemeas ur
edandwhenwor ki
ngons i
mple,addit
iv
et ask
s, r
athert
han
complex ,i
nter
dependenttasks(Comer,1995;Karau&Wi lli
ams,1993)
.Social
loaf
inghasalsooccur r
edinvir
tual
teams(Suleiman&Wat son, 2008).I
naddit
ion,social
loaf
ingismorel
ik
elytooccuringroupsthatarelowin
cohesi
v eness(Li
den,Way ne,Jaworski
,&Bennet t
,2004).

Researchsuggestswhats omeofushav ebel

iev
edallalong—t hats
omei ndividual
smaybemor epronetosoci
al
l
oafingthanot
hers(Smith, Ker
r,Markus
,&Stasson,2001 ;Tan&Tan, 2008) .Anotherst
udy(Robbins,1
995)
foundthati
fgroupmember spercei
vedother
sasengagingi nsoci
all
oafi
ng,iti
ncreasedthei
rtendencyto
l
oaf—goodev idencefortheequityt
heoryofmotivat
ion(seeChapter8)(“Ifthey’r
egoingtoslackoff
,I
’l
lsl
ack
off,
too”).

5)COMPETI
TION-t
hepr
oces
swher
ebygr
oupmember
sar
epi
tt
edagai
nstoneanot
hert
oachi
evei
ndi
vi
dual
goal
s.

Likecooperation,compet it
ionisal
soanat ur
albehaviorthatcommonlyarisesingroupdynamics(Tjosvol
d,1988;
Tjosvold,
XueHuang, Johnson, &Johnson,2008).Wher eascooperati
oninvolvesgroupmember swork i
ng
togethertowards haredcommongoal s
,competit
ionwithingroupsinv
olvesmember sworki
ngagainstone
anothertoachi ev
eindi vi
dual goal
s,oft
enattheexpens eofothermember s.Forexample,i
nas al
escompet i
ti
on,
allmember sofas alesgroupcompet ewit
honeanot her,butonlyonecanbenamedt ops
alesper
son. Mostwork
groupsarer i
fewithcompet it
ionasmember sstr
uggletogetahead.

Ones t
udybyCampbellandFur rer(
1995)f oundev i
dencet hattheintr
oducti
onofcompetit
ioninaworksit
uation
wheregoal
swerealr
eadys etactual
lyl
edt oadecr easeinper f
ormance, somanagersshoul
dbecaut i
ousintheir
useofcompet
it
ionasamot ivati
onalst
rategy,aswewi l
lseeshor tl
yinourdi
scuss
ionofconfli
ct.
Becausebot
h
cooper
ati
onandcompetit
ionar everynaturalhumanpr o-cesses, t
heyoftenbot
hexistsi
debys idei
nwork
groups
,andworkorgani
zationsandwor kcultureactual
lyencour ageboth.

Thev eryf actt

hatwor korganizat
ionsexi
sti
ndi
catesthattheremus tbes omeadv antageinhavi
ngwor kers
cooper atebypoolingtheireff
ortstoperf
ormsomecompl extasks.Atthesamet i
me, thecompens ati
ons y
stems
adopt edbyU. S.organizati
ons,andcompaniesinmos tWes terncountri
es,emphas i
zetherewardingofindivi
dual
effort
s ,whichbreedscompet it
ion.Muchofthi
scompet it
ionisv i
ewedasheal t
hybecaus eitof
tenmot i
vates
peopl etoimprovet hei
rwor kperfor
mance.I
ndeed, i
ntheUni tedStatesandmanyot herindust
ri
ali
z edWes ter
n
nations,beingcompet it
iveisahighlyval
uedcharact
eris
ti
ct hatisconsider
edimperativefori
ndi
vidualand
organizational
succes s.

CONFLI
CTI
NWORKGROUPSANDORGANI
ZATI
ONS

Whereascompeti
ti
onref
erst
oamot i
vat
ingstat
e,conf
li
cti
sus
edt
odes
cri
becompet
it
iv
enes
sofi
ndi
vi
dual
wor
kersorworkgroupst
hatbecomeexposed.

•CONFLICT-isbehavi
orbyaper
sonorgroupt
hati
spur
pos
elydes
ignedt
oinhi
bi
ttheat
tai
nmentofgoal
sby
anot
herper
sonorgroup(Gr
ay&Star
ke,1984).

Therear emanytypicali
nst
ancesofconfl
ictbetweenmember sofanor
gani
zat
ion,
suchastwodel
iv
erypers
ons
arguingoverwhoget stodr
ivethenewcompanyt ruck,uni
onandmanagementrepres
entat
iv
esi
nheated
negot i
ati
onsoveranewcont r
act,ortwoappli
cantscompet i
ngforasi
nglej
ob.
Confli
cti
nworkor
ganiz
ati
onsand
i
not herareasofeverydayl
i
feisindeedacommons t
ateofaff
air
s.
Thekeyel
ementi
nthedef
ini
ti
onofconfl
i
ctist
hatt
heconfli
cti
ngpar
ti
eshavei
ncompatibl
egoals(Tj
osvol
d,
1998a)
.Thus,
bot
hdeli
ver
ypersonscannotdr
ivet
hes ametr
uck,t
heuni
oncannotatt
aini
tsgoalsunl
ess
managementi
swi
ll
ingt
ogiveupsomeofitsgoal
s,andtwopeopl
ecannothol
dthesamejob.

Becauseinextr
emecas esconfl
ictcanl
eadt oavari
etyofnegativ
ebehav iors
, suchass houti
ng,name-call
ing,
andactsofaggressi
on,andperhapsbecaus et
hereisoftena“loser
”inconf l
ictoutcomes ,i
ti
scommonl y
beli
evedthatconf
li
cti
sbad. Howev er
,thi
sisnotnecessari
lyt
rue.Confl
ictisanat uralprocessthatoccursi
nall
workgroupsandorgani
z ati
ons.I
tcanhavenegative,destr
uct
iveconsequences ,butitcanalsobecons t
ructi
ve
andleadtoposit
iv
eoutcomesf orworkgroupsandor ganiz
ati
ons,butonlyunderv eryspecifi
candcontroll
ed
ci
rcumstances(DeDreu, 2008).

General
ly,t
heonlywaytobecer t
ainwhenc onfli
ctisbadorgoodist
oexami
newhetherithaspos
iti
veor
negati
veconsequencesfortheconfl
icti
ngparti
esandf ort
heworkgr
ouporor
ganiz
ationasawhole.Alt
hough
theconsequencesofconfl
i
ctareveryimportant,
wemus tf
ir
stexami
net
hedif
fer
entlevel
sofconf
li
ctthatoccur
i
norganizat
ionsandthepotenti
alsourcesofconfl
ict.

LEVELSOFCONFLI
CT

Conf
li
ctcanoccuratdi
ff
erentlevel
swit
hinaworkorganiz
ati
on.Wetypi
call
ythi
nkofconf
li
ctasoccur
ri
ng
bet
weentwopeopleortwogr oups.However
,workerscanhavei
nter
nalconf
li
ct(
whatwediscussedi
nChapt
er
10asrol
econfl
i
ct)

(1
)INTRAI
NDIVI
DUALCONFLI CToccurwhenonepersoni
sfacedwithtwos et
sofincompatiblegoal
s.For
exampl
e,t
hebusi
nessownerwhohi
reshersonisgoi
ngtobefacedwithser
iousint
ernalconfl
ictwhendeal
ing
wit
hhimasaworkemploy
ee.Herr
olesasmotherandasworksuper
iormaycomei ntoconfli
ct.

(2)Confl
ictbet
weent wopeople,orI
NTERINDIVI
DUALCONFLICT,i
squi
tecommoni nworkgroupsand
organi
zati
ons,andamajorsourceofint
erper
sonal
str
ess
.Twoper
sonsvy
ingfort
hes amepromotioncoul
d
creat
einteri
ndi
vidual
conf
li
ct,becausetheper
sonwhogetst
hepr
omoti
onwouldblocktheotherf
romatta
ini
ng
thegoal.

(3)Thenextlevelofconf
li
ct,
INTRAGROUPCONFLI CT, occursbetweenoneper sonorfactionwithinagroup
andtheothergroupmember s.Ani ndivi
dual whov i
olat
esagr oupnor miscreati
ngi ntr
agroupconflict,
asare
member sofawor kgroupwhodis agreeov erthecour s
eofact i
onforthegroup.As s ume,forexampl e,t
hatal
egal
fi
rmistr
yingtodecidehowt oconductt hei
rbi l
li
ngoper at
ions.Someoft heattor
ney sfavorhiri
ngsomeonei n-
housewhowi ll
handlebil
li
ng,wher easothersbelievethatbil
l
ingshouldbecont ractedwithanout sideagency.
Until
thegroups et
tl
esononeoft hepl ans,thefir
mwi llex
peri
encehi ghlevel
sofintragroupconf l
i
ct.

(4)Whent wogr oupsar

einconfl
ictwi
theachother,
INTERGROUPCONFLI CTexis
ts. Suchconfli
ctoccurs
annuall
yinmanyor gani
zati
onswhendepartmentsareaskedtosubmitt
hei
rbudgetrequestsfortheupcomi ng
year.Usuall
y,thesumoftherequest
sgreat
lyexceedsthetot
alamountofmoneyavailabl
e,whichcreatesagreat
dealofint
ergroupconfl
i
ctaseachdepartmentt
riest
oachieveit
sbudgetar
ygoal
satt heexpens eoftheothers
(Greenberg,1987).

Eachoft hesefourlevelsofconfl
ictt
akesplacewithi
napar t
icularorgani
zat
ion,buti
nter
organizati
onalconfl
ict
occursbet weenor gani
zations.
Bus i
nessesthataref
ighti
ngov erthesamecons umermark etareli
kelyt
oengage
i
ni nt
erorganiz
ationalconfl
ictaseachorganizat
iontr
iestoachieveitssal
esgoalsatt
heex pens eofthoseofthe
other.
Thi scancaus eorganizati
onstocompet etoprovi
debettergoodsands er
vi
cesforcons umers.
I
nterorganizat
ionalconfli
ctcanalsohavenegativeoutcomes,s uchaswhenamanagedcar eorganizat
ionanda
gr
oupofhea
lth-
car
epr
ovi
der
sconf
li
ctcaus
ingpr
obl
emsi
nheal
th-
car
edel
i
ver
ytopat
ient
s(Cal
l
ist
er&Wal
l
,
2001
).

SOURCESOFCONFLI
CT

Confli
cti
nworkgr oupsandorganiz
ati
onscomesf r
ommanys our
ces.Someti
mesiti
scausedbythe
organi
zati
onalst
ructur
e.Forexample,s
tatusdi
ff
erencesar
eacommons our
ceofconfl
i
ct.
Somet i
mesconfli
ct
resul
tsbecauseofsimpledi
sagreementsbetweentwopart
iesovert
heappropri
atewor
kbehaviororcour
seof
acti
on.Alt
houghitwouldbediffi
cul
ttol
istal
lpot
enti
alsour
cesofconfl
ict
,wewil
lexami
nes omeofthemore
commoncaus es.

•As carci
tyofimport
antresources—money,mat
eri
al
s,t
ool
s,andsuppl
ies—isperhapsthemos tcommonsource
ofconfli
ctinworkorgani
zations(Gr
eenber
g&Baron,1
997).I
tisar
areorgani
zat
ionthathasenoughr es
our
cesto
sat
isfytheneedsofallofit
smember s.Whenmembersar
eforcedt
ocompet ewi
thoneanot herfort
hese
res
our ces,conf
li
ctusual
lyfoll
ows.

•Indiv
idualsandwor kgr oupsus uall
ymus trelyont heactivi
ti
esofot herper sonsandgroupst ogett heirownj obs
done. Therefore,individual andgroupi nterdependencei sanimpor t
ants ourceofconfl
ict(Victor&Bl ackburn,
1987).Gener all
y, t
hegr eat ertheinter
dependenceofwor kacti
v i
ti
es,thegr eatert
hepotentialforconfli
ct(Wal t
on
&Dut ton,1969) . Forex ampl e,intheairl
i
nei ndus tr
y, f
li
ghtcrewsmus tdependont hemaintenancecr ews,
l
uggagehandl ers ,andpas sengerboar di
ngper sonnel t
odot heirj
obsi nserv i
cingandl
oadingt heaircraftbefore
theycandot heirjob. I
nter groupconf l
i
ctcanr esul
tifonegr oupdoesnotf eelthatanot
herisdoi ngitsjob.I
fthe
fl
ightcrewf eelsthatt hel uggagehandl ersar etoos low,causingdelaysint akeoff,
thefactthattheflightcrew
maybebl amedf orthedel ayscreatesapot ent i
alconfli
ctsit
uati
on.

•Wehav es eenthatthewe–t heyf eel

ingplay salar
ger ol
einfosteri
nggr oupcohesiveness ;nothi
ngcandrawa
groupt ogetherbett
erthanhav i
ngacommonenemyt ofi
ght.Howev er
,aproblemoccur swhent he“enemy”is
withinyourownor ganizati
on. Thi
si swhatof tencausestheconflicti
nwagenegot i
ati
onsbet weenworkersand
manager s. Theworkersaskf orawagei ncrease,whereasmanagement ,inaneffor
ttok eepcos t
sdown,rej
ects
thereques t.Whatcommonl yresultsisthateachgroupv iewstheot herasanenemybl ockingitsgoalat
tai
nment.
Althought hecommonenemyhel psdr awthemember stogetherwi t
hinthei
rrespect
ivegr oups ,i
tal
sotendsto
drawt hetwogr oupsfurtherawayf r
omeachot her.

•Oneoft hemos tcommons ourcesofconflic

tres ul
tsfromthefactthatcert
aini
ndivi
dualssi
mplydonotget
alongwitheachot her(Labianca,Brass,&Gr ay, 1
998) .Thi
simportantsourceofconfl
i
ctthuscomesf rom
i
nt er
personalsources.Twoor ganizati
onalmember swhodi sl
i
keeachot hermayr ef
usetocooperate.Thissortof
i
nt er
personalconfli
ctcanbev erydisrupt
ivetot helargerworkgroupandt heorgani
zati
oningeneral,
es peci
all
yif
theproblemisbet weent wopower fulpeople,suchast wodepar t
mentheadswhomayt urnt
hei
rs upervis
ees
againstmember soft heotherdepar t
ment.Whatwasonceaconf l
ictbet
weent wopersonscanthuses calat
einto
confli
ctbetweent wogr oups.

CONFLI
CTOUTCOMES

I
thasbeens t
atedthatconfl
i
ctinworkset
tingscanproducebot hposi
ti
veandnegativeoutcomesf ort
he
organi
zat
ion.
Attenti
onisusual
lygiv
entohowconf l
i
ctaffectst
hei mport
antorgani
zati
onaloutcomesofjob
perfor
manceorproducti
vit
y,j
obs at
isf
act
ion,andemployeeattendance.Fi
rst
,wewi l
lexaminethepos i
ti
ve
outcomesofconfl
ict
.Aprimaryquesti
oni
showconf l
ictwithi
nawor kgroupororgani
zationrel
atesto
perfor
mance.
1
)POSI
TIVEOUTCOME

•Onewaythatconfli
ctcanindir
ectl
yaff
ectper
formancei
sbyincr
easi
ngthemotiv
at i
onandener
gylevel
ofgroup
members.
Al i
ttl
ebitofconf
licts
eemstoenergiz
emember s,
whichint
urnmayincreasethei
rmot
ivat
iont
o
per
for
mtheirj
obs .
Thecompl et
eabsenceofconfl
icti
nwor
kgroupscancaus
ewor kerst
obecomecompl ac
ent
andunmoti
vated.(
Itcanals
obev er
ydull
.)

•Anotherposit
iveoutcomeofconf l
icti
st hatitcans t
imul atecreati
vit
yandi nnovati
on( James ,Chen, &Gol dberg,
1992).Whenpeopl echall
enget heex i
st
ings y
stem, aformofconf l
ictr
es ul
ts.Butoutoft hi
sty peofconf l
i
ctcome
new,andof t
enbetter,i
deas.Forexampl e,inmanygr oups ,workerscont i
nuetous ethes ameol d“t
ri
edandt rue”
workprocedures.Whenawor kersugges tsanew, i
mpr ov edmet hod,theremaybes omei ni
tialconfl
ictas
member sresi
sthavingtolear
nanewt echni que.Howev er,ift
henewpr ocedureiseffecti
ve,gr oupproductivi
ty
mayincrease.Thus,alt
houghpeopl etendt oresistchanges ,whenchangei sforthebet ter
,theor ganizat
ionand
i
tsmember sbenefit
.

•Anotherperf
ormance-rel
atedposit
iv
eout comeofconfli
ctoccurswhenconf l
ictimprovesthequal i
tyof
deci
sions(Cosi
er&Dal t
on,1990).Givi
ngallmember sofagroups omeinputintothedecis i
on-mak i
ngpr ocess
l
eadst oconf
li
ctbecausethegroupmus tconsiderawiderangeofoppos i
ngv i
ewsandopi ni
ons .
Conf l
ictoccurs
aseachmembert ri
estobehear dandpus hesforwhatheors hethink
sisri
ght.Thepos it
iveresultofal
l oft
his,
howev er
,ist
hatdeci
sionsmadear eusual
lyofhighquali
ty,beingtheres
ultofav erycri
ti
calprocess.

•I
nChapt ers9and1 1
,wes awt hatemployeeswhof eelt
hattheyhav
eanact i
verolei
naf fect
inggroupor
organi
zat
ionalpr
ocessestendt obemores ati
sf
iedthanthosewhohav enoinfl
uence.Beingabl et
ocommuni cat
e
fr
eelywit
hcowor k
ers,havi
ngav oi
ceindecisi
onmak ing,
andbeingall
owedt omakes ugges t
ionsorcr
it
ici
ze
groupororgani
zati
onaloperat
ionsareal
l waysinwhichworkerscanhavesomei mpactongr oupprocesses.

Althoughsomeconf l
ictisl
ikel
ytoari
seever
yt i
mewor k
er sar
eallowedt oi
ntroducet
hei
rownopinions
,thef
act
thattheycantakepartinthisposi
ti
ve,pr
oducti
vetypeofconfli
ctisassoci
atedwithgr
eat
ergroupmember
satis
facti
on.Theref
ore,somef or
msofconfli
ctcanbedirectl
yass oci
atedwi
t hmembersat
is
facti
onand
commi tmenttothewor kgroup.

2)NEGATI
VEOUTCOME

•Amongt hevari
ousnegat
iveout
comesofconf l
ict,
oneofthemostobvi
ousist
hereduct
ionofgroup
cohesi
veness.Al
thoughal
itt
lebi
tofconf
li
ctcanener gi
zegroupmembers,
toomuchcaner odecohesi
veness
and,i
nextremes,di
mini
shthemember s’
abil
it
iestoworkwitheachot
her.
Thismaycontr
ibutetoi
ncreased
vol
untar
yabs ent
eeis
mandev ent
uall
yemployeet ur
nover.

•Confl
i
ctcanal
sohamperef
fecti
vegr
oupperf
ormancewhenitr
etar
dscommunicat
ion.
Peopl
ewhoar
ein
conf
li
ctmayavoi
dcommunicati
ngwit
heachother
,maki
ngitdi
ff
icul
ttowor
ktoget
her.

•Confli
ctcanalsobedes truct
ivet
ogr oupmembers ati
sf
acti
onwhenconf l
ict
ingpart
iesbegi
nt osendmi
s l
eadi
ng
ordeceptivemessagest ooneanotherorwhenf al
s eanddispar
agi ngrumorsarestar
ted.Evi
dencealsosuggest
s
thatwhenagr eatdealofinter
pers
onal confl
i
ctoccursamongwor kgroupmember s,supervi
sorsmaybeginto
avoidal
lowingsubordinatestopart
ici
pateindecis
ion-mak i
ngproces ses,t
husshutti
ngdownt hist
ypeof
communi cati
on,presumabl yi
nanef f
orttoavoi
dfurtherconf
li
ct(Fodor ,
1976).

•Conf
li
cti
ses
peci
al
lydamagi
ngtoperf
orma
ncewheni
tal
l
owsgroupgoalstobecomesecondar
ytot
he
i
nfi
ght
ing.
Somet
imesmembersdi
rects
omuchener
gytot
heconfl
i
ctsi
tuati
onthatt
heynegl
ectt
operf
ormt
hei
r
j
obs(Robbi
ns,1979).
Ameta-anal
ysi
ssuggest
sthatconf
li
ctcanhav
enegat
iv
eimpact
sonbot
hteam
pr
oducti
vi
tyandonjobsat
is
fact
ion(
DeDr eu&Weingart,
2003).

I
ns ummar y
,neit
hertoomuchnortooli
tt
leconfl
ictisbenefici
alf
ortheworkgroupmember sandt heorgani
zat
ion.
Thismeansthattheremustbesomeoptimallev
el ofconfl
ict.
Becauseconfli
cti
ssoper vasiv
einwor kgroupsand
organi
zat
ions,
itwouldbeverydif
fi
cul
ttoassesswhet herallf
ormsofconfl
ictwereattheiropti
mal l
evel
satany
gi
v ent
ime.Becauses omeexcessors
hortageofconf l
i
ctisinevi
tabl
ygoi
ngt oexi
s t
,thes martt
hingtodoatall
ti
mesinallworkgroupsist
olear
ntomanageconf li
ct.

MANAGI
NGCONFLI
CT

Tomanageconf l
i
ct —tokeepi
tatanopti
mall
evel
—oneoftwothi
ngsmus
tbedone. I
ftheconf
li
ctbecomest oo
gr
eat,
leadingtoseverenegat
iv
eoutcomes,
itmustber
esol
ved.I
f,
ont
heotherhand,
thelevel
ofconfl
icti
stoo
l
ow,confl
ictst
imulati
oni
sneeded.

Thereislit
tl
edoubtt hatt oomuchconfli
ctcanhav edevast
ati
ngcons equencesonbot htheworkgroupandt he
organizati
on. Ther
efore,agreatdealofat
tenti
onhasbeengi ventothedev elopmentandappl icat
ionofvari
ous
confl
ictresoluti
onstrategies
,whichcanbeoft wotypes.I
ndivi
dualconfl
ictres ol
utionstr
ategi
esarethos
et hat
theconf l
i
ctingparti
escanus et
hems el
vestotrytoresol
vetheconfl
ict;
manager ialconfl
i
ctresol
uti
onstr
ategies
arestepsthatmanager sorotherthi
rdpart
iescantaketoencourageconf l
i
ctr esoluti
on.

Thomas(
1976,
1992)hasi
dent
if
iedf
iv
eindi
vi
dual
conf
li
ctr
esol
uti
ons
trat
egi
es:

1.DOMINATING(For
cing)—Pers
ist
ingi
ntheconfl
i
ctunt
il
onepar
ty’
sgoal
sareachi
evedatt
heex
pens
eoft
hos
e
oftheot
her
.Thi
scanbel abel
edawin-l
osest
rat
egy:Onepar
tywi
ns,t
heotherl
oses
.

2.ACCOMMODATI ON—Givi
nginoracti
ngi
nasel
f-s
acri
fi
ci
ngmannert
ores
olvet
heconf
li
ct.
Thisi
salos
e–win
str
ategy
.Often,
thi
ss t
rat
egyofappeas
ementi
sdonetocutl
oss
esori
naneff
ortt
osav
etherel
ati
onshi
pbetween
theconf
li
cti
ngpart
ies.

3.COMPROMI SE—Eachpar tymus tgi

v eupsomething.
Thisisal ose–l
os estrat
egy.Compr omisei
stypical
in
bargai
ni
ngsit
uati
ons.Forex
ampl e,i
nunionmanagementnegot iations,managementmayof fera$1
.50- an-
hour
rai
se,wher
eastheunionwantsa$3. 00rais
e.Theycompr omi
s eat$2. 00, butnei
thergrouphasachievedit
s
complet
egoal.Theyhaveeachlostsomethingfr
omt hei
rori
gi
nal pos i
ti
on—al os
e–loseoutcome.Compr omisei
s
notanappr
opriat
estr
ategyi
fbothpar t
iescannotaf
fordt
oy i
el
dpar tofthei
rgoals(Harri
s,1993).

4.COLLABORATI ON—Thepar ti
estr
yt ocooperateandreachamut ual
lybenefi
ci
alsol
uti
on.Thisi
sawi n–win
sit
uat
ion.Unf
ortunatel
y,t
hisi
snotal
way spos si
ble,par
ti
cular
lywhentheconfl
icti
soverscar
cer es
ources,and
ther
eisnotenought osat
is
fybothpart
ies’needs.Ithasbeens ugges
tedthati
fbothpar
ti
eswor kati
t,
many
confl
i
ctscanber esol
vedcoll
abor
ati
vel
y( Ury,Brett
,&Goldberg, 1
988).

5.AVOIDANCE—Suppr es s
ingtheconf
li
ct,notal
l
owingittocomei nt
otheopen,orsimplywithdrawingfromthe
si
tuat
ion.Althoughthisstr
ategyavoi
dsopenconfli
ct,
thediff
erencesbetweenthetwopar t
iess t
il
lex
istandwill
l
ikel
ycontinuetoaffectthei
rabil
it
ytoworkwithoneanother.
Av oi
dancecanbeappr opr
iateiftheti
mingforopen
confl
i
ctisnotr i
ghtorift
heconfli
cti
ngpart
iesneeda“cooli
ng-off”peri
od.

Althoughthetwoconfl
i
ctingpar
ti
escantak esuchstepstotrytoresolvethei
rdi
ff
erences
,managers,becauseof
theirst
atusandpoweri
nt heor
ganiz
ati
on, canplayamajorroleinresol
v i
ngconf
li
ctbetweensubor
dinates(Bl
ake,
Shepard, &Mouton,
1964; Pi
nkl
ey,Bri
tt
ain,Neale,&Northcraft
,1995; Sheppar
d,1974).Manager
smayt ryto
forceanendt ot
heconfl
ictbydeci
di
nginf avorofoneortheotherpar t
ies.
Alt
houghthi
smayendtheconfl
ict
,res
entmentmaybebui ltupi
nthelosi
ngpersonthatmaysurfacel
ateri
n
act
ionsagai
nstt
hemanagerorthecoworker(
vandeVl i
ert
,Euwema, &Huismans,1
995) .Managerscanals
oact
asarbi
tr
ator
sormedi
atorst
oresol
veconfl
icti
nawayt hatmays at
is
fybothpar
ti
es.Forexample,twographi
c
art
ist
swereconst
ant
lyfi
ght
ingoveruseofacomputerscannerneededtoperf
ormtheirj
obs.

Whenonewor kerneededt
hes canner
,i
tal
waysseemedthatt
heotherpers
onwasusi
ngi
t,whichl
edtocons
tant
arguments.
Whent hemanagerbecameawareofthepr
oblem,
heinstant
lyr
esol
vedi
tbys
implypur
chasi
ng
anothers
canner
.

I
not
herci
rcumst
ances
,out
sidecons
ult
ant
sorar
bit
rat
orsmaybecal
l
edi
nspeci
fi
cal
l
ytor
esol
vei
nter
nal
conf
li
cts
i
nor
gani
zati
ons(
Thomas,1
992) .

Onemanager i
alconfl
ictr
esol
utionstr
ategy
,out
li
nedinas eri
esofstudi
esbySher
ifandhiscol
leagues(Sher
if
,
Harvey
,White,Hood, &Sheri
f,1 961
),deal
swit
hresol
vingintr
agroupconf
li
ctbys
timulat
ingi
ntragr
oup
cohesi
venes
st hroughtheint
roducti
onofacommon, superordi
nategoalt
hati
sat
tract
ivetobothpart
ies.

•SUPERORDI
NATEGOAL-agoal
thatt
woconf
li
cti
ngpar
ti
esar
ewi
l
li
ngt
owor
ktoat
tai
n.

Whenagr oupiss pl
itoversomemi nori
ssue,introducingamor eimpor tantsuper
ordi
nategoal maydr awthetwo
sidestogetherastheys t
ri
vetoattai
nthecommonend. Forex ample, commi ssi
onedsalespersonsinthemen’ s
clothi
ngsectionofal ar
gechaindepartments torewer econs ta ntl
yfightingoverwhowoul dbet hefi
rsttograba
cus t
omerwhowal kedintothearea.Themanagerhel pedt or es ol
vemuchoft hi
sconfl
ictbyintroduci
ngabonus
programt hatpi
ttedthedepartment’soveral
lsalesagai nstthos eofmen’ sdepart
mentsi notherstor
es.By
focusingonpool edsalesfi
gures
, t
heempl oyeesbecameor ient edtowar dbeati
ngtheot herst
oresratherthan
beat i
ngeachot her.

Manager scanalsohelpresolv
econf l
i
cti ngroupdeci
si
onmaki
ng(Conl
on&Ros s,1993).Forex ample,theymay
usetheirauthori
tyt
ocallanissuetoav ote,whichmeanst
hatt
hemajor
it
yofworkerswil
lwintheconf li
ctsit
uati
on.
Howev er,theremaybeadi sgrunt
ledmi nori
tyofl
oser
s,whomayt
hencarryontheconfl
ictbyref usi
ngtofoll
ow
theel
ect edplanorbysomeot hermeans .Themanagerwi
ll
needt
odealwitht
hisresi
dualconfl
ictifi
tisdeemed
seri
ousenought orequir
eresoluti
on.

Thek eytosucces
sfulconfl
i
ctresol
uti
onfr
omt hemanageri
alper
spect
ivei
stomaint
ainabroadper
specti
ve,
try
ingtofi
ndawor kabl
es ol
uti
onandconsider
ingthepot
enti
alsi
deeff
ects
,suchasdi
s gr
untl
edl
oser
s,thatmay
resul
tfr
omt heres
oluti
onprocess(seeboxApplyi
ngI/
OPs ychol
ogy)
.

GROUPDECI
SION-
MAKI
NGPROCESSES

Oneofthemos ti
mpor tantproces
s esi
nworkgroupsisgr
oupdeci s
ionmaki
ng,whichi
ncl
udesestabl
ishi
ng
groupgoal
s,choosingamongv ar
iouscour
sesofacti
on,s
electi
ngnewmember s,anddet
ermini
ngstandar
dsof
appropr
iat
ebehavior.Theprocessesbywhichgroupsmaket hesedeci
si
onshavebeenofi
nteres
ttoI/O
psychol
ogist
sformanyy ear
s.

•Groupscanmak ewor k-r

elat
eddeci si
onsinanumberofway s.Thes implestandmos tst
raight
forwardstr
ategy
,
knownasAUTOCRATI CDECISI ONMAKI NG, i
swhent hegroupleadermak esdeci si
onsal
one, us
ingonlythe
i
nformati
onthatt
heleaderpos sesses.Themajoradv antageofautocrati
cdeci s
ionmak i
ngisthati
tisfast
.
Decisi
onsaremadequi ckl
ybyt heleaderandarethenex pectedtobecar ri
edoutbygr oupmember s.
Howev er,
becausethedeci
sionismadebas edonlyonwhatt heleaderknowst hequali
t yofthedeci
sionmays uffer
.For
example,suppos
eal eaderofagr oupofaccountantshast odeci
dewhi chaccount ingsof
twaretoorder.I
fthe
l
eaderact
ual
l
yknowswhi
chpr
ogr
ami
sthebes
tfort
hegr
oup,
ther
ewi
l
lbenodr
awbackt
otheaut
ocr
ati
c
appr
oach.

•If
,however
,theleadercannotmakeaninformedchoice,thedeci si
onmaybef aul
ty
. I
nthi
scase,i
nputfr
omthe
groupmember swouldbehelpful
.Avar
iati
onont hestri
ctautocrati
cdecisi
on- maki
ngapproachoccurswhenthe
l
eadersol
i
cit
sinformati
onfromgroupmember stoassi
stinreachingadecis i
on,butsti
ll
hol
dsthefi
nalsay.
Thi
sis
someti
mesreferr
edtoasCONSULTATI VEDECI SI
ONMAKI NG. Inthesoftwaredeci
s i
on,s
oli
ci
ti
nginputf
rom
groupmember saboutwhichsyst
emstheyf avormightl
eadt oahi gherquali
tydeci
sion.

•Av er
ydiff
erentstrategyisDEMOCRATI CDECI SIONMAKI NG, i
nwhi chall
groupmember sareall
owedt o
dis
cussthedecisionandt henvot
eonapar t
icul
arcourseofaction.Typical
l
y,democrat
icdecisi
onmak ingis
basedonma jori
tyrule.Oneadvantageofthisapproachisthatdecisi
onsaremadeus i
ngt hepooledknowledge
andexperi
enceofal lthegroupmembers. Moreover,becauseallmember shaveachancet ovoiceanopini
onor
suggestadif
ferentcour s
eofacti
on,agreaternumberofal t
ernati
vesareconsider
ed.Al
s o,becausegroup
member shavear ol
ei nthedeci
si
onmak ing,theyaremor eli
kelytofol
lowthechosencour s
e.

Themos tobvi
ousdr
awbackt odemocrat
icdeci
si
onmakingisthati
ti
stimeconsuming.
Becauseitencour
ages
conf
li
ct,
itcanal
sobeineff
icient
.Alt
houghthedemocrat
ic,major
it
y-r
uleappr
oachresul
tsi
nas at
isf
iedmajor
it
y
whowill
backthedeci
sion,theremaybeadi sgr
unt
ledminori
tywhoresi
sti
tsi
mplementati
on.

•As t
rat
egythatov er
comess omeoftheweak nessesofdemocrati
cdecis i
onmak i
ngistomak edecis
ionsbased
onCONSENSUS, whichmeansthatall
groupmember shaveagreedont hechosencourseofacti
on.Because
consensusdecis
ionmak i
ngisespecial
l
yt i
mecons uming,i
ti
susuallyusedonlyf
orv er
yimportantdecis
ions.
For
example,j
uri
esus ethi
sstrat
egybecausethedecisionaff
ect
sthef r
eedomandf utureoftheaccused.Some
companyex ecut
iveboardsmays t
ri
veforacons ensuswhenmak i
ngmajordecisi
onsaboutchangesi nthe
di
recti
onoftheorganizat
ionori
norganizat
ionalst
ructur
eorcompanypol icy.

Asyoumi ghtimagi
ne,theout
comeofconsensusdeci
si
onmak i
ngi
susuall
yahigh-
quali
ty,hi
ghl
ycrit
iqued
deci
s i
on,backedbyall
member soft
hegroup.Theobvi
ousdrawbackisthetr
emendousamountoftimeitmay
tak
ef ort
hegrouptoreachaconsensus
.Infact
,i
nmanys i
tuat
ions,
arr
ivi
ngataconsensusmaybei mpossi
ble,
part
icul
arl
yifoneormoregroupmembersisstr
ongl
yresi
st
anttothemajori
ty
’sdeci
si
on( t
hecour
troomanalogy
wouldbea“ hung”jur
y).

GROUPDECI
SIONMAKI
NGGONEAWRY:
GROUPTHI
NKANDGROUPPOLARI
ZATI
ON

Whenmak ingi mport

antwor kdeci
sions,
particul
arlythosethathav eamajori
mpactont heworkpr oceduresor
worki
ngli
vesofgr oupmember s,
groupdecisionmak i
ngmaybepr efer
redoverdeci
sionmak i
ngbyhi gh-ranki
ng
membersoft heorganiz
ation.Thi
sisdoneinanef f
orttoincreasetheamountofrel
evantinf
ormationav ai
labl
e
andtoencouragemembercommi tmenttotheev entuall
ychos encourse.However,
ps y
chologi
stshav e
di
scover
edt wos it
uati
onsinwhicht heusualadvantagesofgr oupdecisionmaki
ngmaynotbef or
t hcoming:One
i
sknownasgr oupthi
nk,andtheotherister
medgr ouppol ar
izati
on.

1)GROUPTHINK-asyndr
omecharact
eri
zedbyaconcur
rences
eek
ingt
endencyt
hatov
err
idest
heabi
l
it
yofa
cohes
ivegr
ouptomak
ecri
tical
deci
si
ons.

Groupsgenerall
yarr
iveathigh-qualit
ydecisi
onsbecausethealt
ernat
iv
ecour sesofactionhavebeens ubject
ed
t
ocr i
ti
calev
aluati
on.Thi
sisparticular
lytr
ueinconsensusdecis
ionmaking,becaus eevenonedissenti
ng
membercanar gueagainstaplanf avoredbyall
therest
.Thereis,
howev er
,anex cepti
ontothi
srule.Acompl ex
setofci
rcumstancescans ometimesoccurinconsensusdecisi
onmak i
ngthatr et
ardsthecri
ti
caleval
uation
process.
Whatres
ultsi
sacomplet
ebackfi
ri
ngoft
henormal,
cri
ti
cal
decis
ionmak
ingt
hatr
esul
tsi
napr
emat
ure,
hasty,
andof
tencatast
rophi
cdeci
si
on.Thi
ssit
uat
ioni
ster
medgroupthi
nk.

Groupthi
nkisasyndr
omet hatoccursinhi
ghl
ycohesi
vedeci
si
on-maki
nggr oups,
whereanor
mdev el
opsto
ar
riveatanear
lyconsens
us ,t
herebyreduci
ngtheef
fect
iv
enessoft
hegroup’sabi
li
tyt
omakehigh-
qual
it
y,
cr
iti
caldeci
si
ons.

Theconceptofgr oupthi
nkwasr esearchedbyps ychol
ogi
stIrv
ingJani
s(1972,1982; Jani
s&Mann, 1977).
AccordingtoJanis,gr
oupthi
nkus ual
lyoccursonlyinhi
ghlycohesiv
egroupsinwhicht hemembers’desi
reto
maintai
ncohes i
venessoverri
desthes omet i
mesuncomfortabl
eanddisr
uptiv
epr ocessofcri
ti
cal
decisi
on
mak i
ng. Acour
seofact i
onisl
aidoutont het abl
e,andwit
houtitbei
ngadequatel
ycr i
ti
qued,t
hemember srapi
dl
y
mov etowardacons ensustoadoptthepl an.

Despi
teJani
s’sassert
ionthatgr
oupthinkus ual
lyonl
yoccursinhi
ghl
ycohesiv
egr oups,r
esearchsuggest
sthati
t
i
sgroupswhos ecohesivenessi
s“rel
ationshipbased”thatar
emorepronetogroupthi
nkthangroupswhose
cohesi
venes
sis“ t
askbas ed,
”orrel
atedt othedecisi
on-maki
ngandperfor
mancegoal softhegroup(Ber
nthal
&
I
nsko,1993)
.

I
ndev el
opinghistheoryofgr oupthi
nk,Jani
ss tudi
edanumberofpoordeci sionsmadebyhi gh-level
decisi
on-
mak i
nggroups,suchasU. S. presi
denti
aladministrationsandboardsofdi
rector
sofl argecompani es
,the
consequencesofwhi chwer es obadthatJanislabeledt heoutcomes“fi
ascoes.”Janisinvest
igatedanumberof
hi
stori
calf
iascoes,suchast heKennedyadmi ni st
ration’sfai
l
edBayofPigsinvasion,theTrumanadmi nis
trat
ion’
s
decis
iontocrossthethir
ty-eighthparal
leli
ntheKor eanWar ,andtheJohnsonadmi nistr
ati
on’
sdeci si
onto
escal
atetheVietnamWar .

Healsost
udiedcatas
trophicbusinessdeci
s i
ons,suchasthedeci
si
ontomar k
etthedr
ugThali
domide, whi
chl
ed
t
othousandsofbir
thdef or
miti
es;theBuff
aloMiningCompany ’
sdecis
ionaboutdamconst
ruct
ion,whichcaus
ed
t
hedeathsof125peopl e;andtheFordMot orCompany ’
sdecisi
ontomarkett
heEdsel
,oneofthegreatest
f
ail
uresi
nU.S.automotivehist
ory(Wheeler&J anis,1
980).

I
nmor erecenthist
ory,resear
chershav est udiedNASA’ scatas
trophi
cdecisiontolaunchtheChallengers pace
shuttl
e(Es s
er,1998),andt hetor
tureofIraqi pri
sonersbytheU.S. mi
li
tar
yinAbuGhr ai
b(Pos t
,201 1
). By
studyingthedecisi
on-mak i
ngprocessesineachear l
ycaseofgroupt
hink,Janisnoti
cedcertai
nsimilarit
iest
hat
hehast ermedt he“sympt omsofgr oupthink”—s peci
fi
cgroupfactor
sthatwor ktowardpr
e- vent
ingt hecrit
ical
evaluati
onus ual
lypresentindecis
ion-mak i
nggr oups.

Tounderst
andhowt hesymptomsofgr oupthi
nkinter
ferewithcrit
icaldecisi
on-mak i
ngproces
ses,
consi
derthe
fol
l
owingexample.Aboardofdi
rectorsofaninter
nati
onalairfr
eightservicemus tdeci
dewhethert
hecompany
shoul
denteracost
-cutt
ingwarwiththeircompeti
tors
. Theboardbegi nsitsdeci
s i
on-makingmeet
ingwit
hthe
chai
rper
son’sl
oadedquesti
on,“Shouldweent eri
ntothisfool
ishpr i
cewar ,orj
ustkeepratest
hewaytheyare?
”

Bylabel i
ngthepri
cewaras“ f
ool
ish,
”thechair
personhasalreadyindicatedherpref
err
edcourseofacti
on:Keep
theratesastheyare.Normall
y,t
hecri
ti
caldeci
sion-mak i
ngprocesswoul dinvol
veagreatdealofdi
scussi
on
aboutt herel
ati
vestr
engthsandweaknessesofthev ar
iousal
ternat
ives,andthedecisi
onthatwouldres
ult
shouldbeofhi ghqual
it
y.Howev er
,i
ngroupthi
nks i
tuat
ionsthi
sdoesnotoccur .

Thesymptomsofgroupt
hink
,themselv
esma ni
fest
ati
onsofsuchbasicgr
ouppr ocess
esascohesi
venes
s,
st
ereoty
pedandrat
ional
i
zedv i
ews,andconfor
mity
,cancounter
actthecri
ti
caleval
uati
onst
hatshoul
dbemade.
I
fgroupthi
nkdoesi
ndeedoccur,t
heconsequencesmaybedev ast
ati
ng,part
icul
arl
ybecaus
ethegroupbel
i
eves
t
hatt
hechos
enact
ioni
sther
esul
tofacr
it
ical
andwel
l
-conduct
eddeci
si
on-
mak
ingpr
oces
s,wheni
ti
snot
.

THEEI
GHTSYMPTOMSOFGROUPTHI
NK

a.I
LLUSIONOFINVULNERABILI
TY—Thehighl
ycohesi
vedeci
si
on-maki
nggr
oupmembersseethemselvesas
powerf
ulandi
nvi
nci
ble.
Thei
rat
tr
act
iont
oandfai
thi
nthegroupl
eadst
hemtoi
gnor
ethepotent
ial
disas
trous
out
comesofthei
rdeci
si
on.

b.ILLUSIONOFMORALI TY—Member
sbeli
evei
nthemor
alcor
rect
nessoft
hegroupanditsdeci
si
on;r
elat
edt
o
thefir
stsympt
om.Deri
vedfr
omt
hewe–theyf
eel
i
ng,membersv
iewthemsel
vesasthe“goodguys”andthe
oppos i
ti
onasbadorev
il
.

c.SHAREDNEGATIVESTEREOTYPES—Member
shav
ecommonbel
i
efst
hatmi
ni
miz
ether
is
ksi
nvol
vedi
na
deci
si
onorbel
i
ttl
eanyoppos
ingv
iewpoi
nts
.

d.COLLECTI
VERATIONALI
ZATI
ONS—Themember
sex
plai
nawayanynegat
iv
einf
ormat
iont
hatr
unscount
er
tot
hegroupdeci
si
on.

e.
SELF-
CENSORSHI
P—Member
ssuppr
esst
hei
rowndoubt
sorcr
it
ici
smsconcer
ningt
hedeci
si
on.

f
.ILLUSIONOFUNANI MI
TY—Member smi
st
akenl
ybeliev
et hatt
hedecisi
onisacons
ens
us.
Becaus
edi
ssent
ing
v
iewpointsar
enotbei
ngv
oiced,
iti
sas
sumedt
hatsi
lenceindicat
essupport
.

g.DI
RECTCONFORMI TYPRESSURE—Whenanoppos
ingv
ieworadoubti
sex
pres
sed,
pres
sur
eisappl
i
edt
o
gett
hedi
ssent
ert
oconcurwi
tht
hedeci
si
on.

h.MI
NDGUARDS—Somemember spl
ayt
her
oleofpr
otect
ingori
nsul
ati
ngt
hegr
oupf
romanyoppos
ing
opi
ni
onsornegat
iv
einf
ormat
ion.

2)GROUPPOLARI ZATION-thetendencyforgroupstomakedecisionst hataremoreex tr

emet hant
hosemade
byindivi
dual
s(My ers&Lamm, 1976).Ear
lyresearchf
oundevi
denceoft heeffectsofgrouppolari
zat
ionwhen
decisi
onscarri
edahi ghdegr
eeofris
k.Int
hes estudi
es,i
ndi
vi
dualswer eas kedtomak eadeci s
ionbetweenan
attr
acti
vebutri
s k
ycour s
eofacti
onandonet hatwaslessat
tr
acti
vebutal s ol
essrisky.Aft
ermak i
ngthedeci
si
on,
therespondentswereputint
ogroupsandas kedtocomeupwi t
hagr oupdeci si
on.I
twasf oundthatt
hegroups
tendedtomak erisk
ierdeci
si
onsthantheaverageindi
vi
dual(
Wallach, Kogan, &Bem, 1962).

Thiseff
ectbecamek nownast he“ r
iskyshi
ft”andwast hetopicofmuchr es
earchandtheori
zi
ng.I
thadmajor
i
mpl i
cati
onsf ort
hemak ingofimpor t
antdecisi
onsinbus i
nessandgov er
nmentbecauseitsuggest
edthatgr
oup
decisi
onsmi ghtbemor edanger ousthandec i
si
onsmadebyi ndiv
idual
s.However,
subsequentres
earchbegan
tochall
enget heseearl
yfindings ,f
ail
i
ngt of
indariskyshif
tins omedecisi
on-maki
nggroupsandoccas i
onal
l
y
fi
ndingevidenceofacaut iouss hif
t.

Whatwenowk nowisthatgr
oupdi
scus
sionof
tenleadsindi
vi
dual
stobecomemor eextr
emeinthei
ropi
nions
.
Theatti
tudesandopini
onsofi
ndi
vi
dual
swhofav orani
deatendtobecomeevenmor eposi
ti
veaft
ergr
oup
di
scussi
on, wher
easthosewhodonotf
avoranideatendtodevel
opopini
onst
hatareevenmorenegati
ve
(I
senber
g, 1986;Lamm,1988).

Howdoesgr
ouppol
ari
zat
ionr
elat
etodeci
si
onsmadei
nwor
ksi
tuat
ions
,andwhydoesi
toccur
?

Imagi
nethatacompanymus
tchoos
ewhichofsever
alnewproduct
sitshoul
dint
roduce.Someoft
heproducts
ar
ecostl
ytodevel
opandmar
ket,
buti
fsucces
sful
theycoul
dbringl
argeprof
it
s.Otherpr
oduct
sarel
esscostl
y
butwi
ll
leadtosmal
lerf
inanci
algai
ns.
Ani
ndi
vi
dual
whomak
est
hedeci
si
onmi
ghtchoos
etoi
ntr
oduceapr
oduct
ofmedi
um- l
evel
ri
skandpay of
f.

However
,ift
hepersoni
sputi
ntoagroupthati
sleani
ngtowardmar ket
ingariskyproduct,t
hegr oup’sdeci
si
on
woul
dbemor eextr
emethant
heindi
vidual
’s.I
f,
ontheotherhand,thegroupisleani
ngt owardthes i
deofcaut
ion,
t
hegroupmightshi
ftt
oamorecauti
ouschoicethant
hety pi
cali
ndivi
dualwouldchoos e.Researchsuggest
sthat
vi
rt
ualgr
oupsmaybeev enmor
epronet ogr
ouppolari
zat
ionthanface-to-
facegroups( Si
a,Tan, &Wei ,
2002).

Twoex
planat
ionsf
orgr
ouppol
ari
zat
ionhav
ebeenof
fer
ed.

•Thefir
stisthatint hegroup,t
heindivi
duali
spresentedwithper
suasi
veargumentsbyothermember st
hat
bol
stert
hei ndivi
dual ’
sorigi
nal
posit
iveornegat
ives t
anceonani ss
ue.Aft
erhear
ingothersi
nt hegrouparguef
or
adecisi
ont hatcoincideswitht
heindivi
dual’
sopini
on, heorshebecomesmorecertai
nthathisorheropini
onis
cor
rect,andt her
ei satendencyforthegroupasawhol et
obecomemor eextr
emeinitsfi
naldecis
ion.

•Theotherexplanat
ionisthati
ndivi
dual
sadoptthev al
uesofthegroup.I
fthegr
ouppr
esentsapos i
ti
veopi
ni
on
onanissue,t
hei ndi
vidual
sgoalongwi t
hthegroup,becomingevenmor eposi
ti
ve(
ornegati
ve)aboutani
dea
thant
heywoul dbeal one.
Indiv
idual
smays upportt
hev i
ewpointofthegr
ouptodemonstr
atethatt
heyendors
e
thegr
oup’svalues.

Regardles
sofwhyitoccurs
, t
hefactt
hatsomegroupdeci
sionsmaybemor eext
remethanthoseofi
ndi
vi
dual
sis
areasonforsomeconcern,par
ti
cular
lywhenadecis
ioni
nvolvesr
is
ksthatmaycompromisethegoal
soft
he
group,orwhenext
remelycauti
ousdecisi
onsi
nhi
bitt
heatt
ainmentofgroupgoal
s.

Des pi
tethepers
ist
enceofgrouppol ar
iz
ation,therearepotenti
als
afeguardsthatmaymi nimiz
eit
seffecton
decisi
onmak i
ng.Evi
dencehasindicatedtha tgroupscompos edofindi
vidual
swhoal li
nit
ial
lyagr
eeonani ss
ue,
beforeanygroupdiscussi
onhastakenplace, tendtomak edecisi
onsthatarethemos textr
eme.Thatis,t
hese
decisi
onstendtobeev enmoreextremet handeci si
onsmadebygr oupscompos edofmember swhodonot
i
nit
iall
yagreewit
honeanot her(
Wi l
l
iams&Taor mina,1
992) .

Thus,whengr oupsincl
udemember swhohavev
aryi
ngorigi
nalopini
onsonani s
sue,thedeci
si
onsmadeby
thos
egr oupsmaybemor eres
ist
anttot
heeff
ect
sofgrouppolari
zati
on,andthusles
sex t
reme.Thepr
esenceof
evenas i
ngledissent
ingmemberinagroupmayhel
ptocombatgr ouppolari
zati
on,j
ustasa“devil
’
sadvocat
e”
canhelpcombatgr oupthi
nk.