Samenvatting Organisational behavior

9. Foundations of group behavior
Defining and classifying groups
A group is two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent who have come together to achieve
particular objectives. Groups can be either formal or informal. Formal groups are a designated work group
defined by an organization’s structure. In formal groups, the behaviours that team members should engage in
are stipulated by and directed toward organizational goals. For example, a team of six members which form an
airline flight crew. Informal groups are groups that is neither formally structured nor organizationally
determined; such a group appears in response to the need for social contact. Informal groups are natural
formations in the work environment. For example, three employees from different departments who go to
lunch together. Informal groups deeply affect their behavior and performance. It’s possible to further
subclassify groups as;
- Command group
A group composed of the individuals who report directly to a given manager. For example a school
principal and her 18 teachers. This is formed by the organizations chart.
- Task groups
Are people who are working together to complete a job task. Also determined by organization. Task
groups boundaries are not limited to its immediate hierarchical superior It can cross command
relationships.
- Interest group
Are people working together to attain a specific objective with which each is concerned. For example
employees who band together to have their holiday schdules altered, to support a peer who has been
fired or to seek improved working conditions represent the formation of a united body to further their
common interest.
- Friendship group
are people brought together because they share one or more common characteristics. These are
social alliences which frequently are extended outside the work situation. For example a common
interest in 9gag or a band.
There is not 1 reason for an individual to join groups because most people belong to a number of groups, it’s
obvious that different groups provide different benefits to their members. There are 6 popular reasons why
people join groups:
1. Security (people feel more resistant to threaths, fewer self-doubt and feel stronger)
2. Status (recognition and status for its members)
3. Self-esteem (provide feeling of self-worth)
4. Affiliation (fulfill social needs)
5. Power (sometimes a number of people can achieve what you cant achieve alone)
6. Goal achievement (use of members knowledge or skills you don’t have achieve a goal)

Stages of group development
Five-stage model
Groups generally pass through a standardized sequence in their evolution. This sequence is called the five-
stage model of group development. Research indicates that not all groups follow this pattern, it’s a useful
framework for understanding group development.
1. Forming
Characterized by much uncertainty about the group’s purpose, structure and leadership. Members
test which kind of behaviors are acceptable. This stage is completed when members have begun to
think of themselves as part of a group.
2. Storming
Characterized by intragroup conflict. Members accept the existence of the group, but there is
resistance to the constraints that the group imposes on individuality. Furthermore, there is conflict
over who will control the group. This stage is completed when there will be a relatively clear hierarchy
of leadership within the group.
3. Norming
Characterized by close relationships and cohesiveness. There is a strong sense of group identity and
camaraderie. This stage is complete when the group structure solidifies and the group has assimilated
a common set of expectations of what defines correct member behavior.


1

, 4. Performing
The structure at this point is fully functional and accepted. Group energy has moved from getting to
know and understand each other to performing the task at hand. For permanent workgroups
performing is the last stage in the group development.
5. Adjourning
Characterized by concern with wrapping up activities rather than task performance. This stage is only
performed by temporary workgroups.
Many interpreters of the five-stage model have assumed that a group becomes more effective as it progressed
through the first four stages. Although this assumption may be generally true, what makes a group effective is
more complex that this model acknowledges. There are three problems with this model; sometimes high levels
of conflict may be conducive to high group performance, groups do not always proceed clearly from one stage
to the next (sometimes they even regress of follow two stages at the same time) and it ignores organizational
context.

An alternative model for temporary groups with deadlines
Temporary groups with deadlines don’t seem to follow the usual five-stage model. For temporary groups there
is the punctuated-equilibrium model. This is a set of phases that temporary groups go through that involves
transitions between inertia and activity.
1. First meeting sets the groups direction
2. This first phase of group activity is one of inertia
3. A transition takes place at the end of this first phase, which occurs exactly when the group has used up
half its allotted time
4. A transition initiates major changes
5. A second phase of inertia follow the transition
6. The groups last meeting is characterized by markedly accelerated activity.

Group properties: roles, norms, status, size and cohesiveness
Group property 1: Roles
A role is a set of expected behavior patterns attributes to someone occupying a given position in a social unit.
We don’t really have a choice regarding these roles. We are required to play a number of divers roles, both on
and off our jobs. Our behavior varies with the role we are playing. Role identity are certain attitudes and
behavior consistent with a role. We have the ability to shift roles rapidly when we recognize that a situation
and its demands clearly require major changes. Role perception is an individual’s view of how he or she is
supposed to act in a given situation. Role expectations are how others believe a person should act in a given
situation. In the workplace, it can be helpful to look at the topic of role expectations through the perspective of
psychological contract. Psychological contract is an unwritten agreement that sets out what management
expects from an employee and vice versa. For instance, an employer is expected to treat employees justly and
provide acceptable working conditions while an employee is expected to following instructions from the
employer. In effect, this contract defines the behavioral expectations that go with every role. If management is
derelict in keeping up its part of the bargain, we can expect negative repercussion on employee performance
and satisfaction. When employees fail to live up to expectations, the result is usually some form of disciplinary
action up to and including firing. Role conflict is a situation in which an individual is confronted by divergent
role expectations. An good example of how people adapt to new roles is Zimbardo’s prison experiment.

Group properties 2 and 3: norms and status
All groups have established norms. Norms are acceptable standards of behavior within a group that are shared
by the group’s members. Norms tell members what they ought and ought not to do under certain
circumstances. When agrees to and accepted by the group, norms act as a means of influencing the behavior of
group members with a minimum of external controls. Different groups, communities and societies have
different norms, but they all have them. Norms can cover virtually any aspect of group behavior. Probably the
most common group norm is a performance norm. Work groups typically provide their members with explicit
cues to how hard they should work, how to get the job done, what their level of output should be and so on.
These norms are extremely powerful in affecting an individual employee’s performace. Althought arguably the
most important, performance norms aren’t the only kind. Other types include appearance norms (dress code,
unspoken rules about when to look busy), social arrangement norms (with whom group members have luch)
and resource allocation norms (assignment of difficult jobs, distribution of resources like pay or equipment).
The hawthorne studies concluded that a worker’s behavior and sentiments were closely related, that group

2

,influences were significant in affecting individual behavior, that group standards were highly effective in
establishing individual worker output, and that money was less a factor in determining worker output that
were group standard, sentiments and security. Hawthorne also studied the effects of physical environment and
productivity. A surprise was that when the light in the room was decreased to moonlight the productivity also
decreased. The same counts for worker input and the related economic reward. The output of the workers
became controlled by a group norm that determined what was a proper day’s work. After interviews were
being held and members were afraid that if they significantly increase their ouput, the unit incentive rate
would be cut, the expected daily output would be increased, layoffs might occur or slower workers would be
reprimanded. So the group established its idea of a fair output.
As a member of a group, you desire acceptance by the group. Because of your desire for acceptance you are
susceptible to conforming to the group’s norms. Do individuals conform to the pressures of all groups to which
they belong? Obviously not, because people belong to to many groups, and their norms vary. So what do
people do? They conform to the important groups to which they belong or hope to belong. The important
groups have been called reference groups. Reference groups are important groups to which individuals belong
or hope to belong and with whose norms individuals are likely to conform. The impact that group pressures for
conformity can have on an individual member’s judgment and attitudes was demonstrated in the now-classic
studies by Solomon Asch. Conformity is the adjustment of one’s behavior to align with the norms of the group.
The classic studie of S. Asch is that people got to see a line and had to answer which line was the same (A, B or
C). The correct answer was B, but everyone chose C. Why? Because they were told by another person that the
correct answers was C, even thought they knew it was B. The result was that 75% of the subjects gave at least
one answer that conformed and the average for conformers was 37%. These results suggest that there are
group norms that press us toward conformity. That is, we desire to be one of the group and avoid being visibly
different. But is this all valid and generalizable across cultures? The evidence indicates that there have been
changes in the level of conformity over time; and Asch’s findings are culture bound. Specifically, levels of
conformity have steadily declined since Asch’s studies in the early 1950’s. In addition, conformity to social
norms is higher in collectivist cultures than in individualistic cultures. Nevertheless, even in individualistic
countries, you should consider conformity to norms to still be a powerful force in groups.
Deviant workplace behavior is voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in doing
so, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members, it is also called antisocial behavior or
workplace incivility. As with norms in general, individual employees antisocial actions are shaped by the group
context within which they work. Evidence demonstrates that the antisocial behavior exhibited by a work group
is a significant predictor of an individual’s antisociale behavior at work. In other words, deviant workplace
behavior is likely to flourish where it’s supported by group norms. What this means for managers is that when
deviant workplace norms surface, emplotee corporation, commitment, and motivaton are likely to suffer. This,
in turn, can lean to reduced employee productivity and job satisfaction and increased turnover. In addition, just
being a part of a group can increase an individual’s deviant behavior. Groups provide a shield on anonymity so
that someone who ordinarily might be afraid of getting caught for stealing can rely o the fact that other group
members had the same opportunity or reason to steal. This creates a false sense of confidence that may result
in more aggressive behavior. Thus, deviant behavior depends on the accepted norms of the group or even
whether an individual is part of a group.
Status is a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others. Even the smallest
group will develop roles, rights and rituals to diferentiaite its members. Status is an important factor in
understanding human behavior because it is a significant motivator and has major behavioural consequences
when individuals perceive a disparity between what they believe their status to be and what other perceive it
to be. The status characteristics theory is a theory which states that differences in status characteristics
creates status hierarchies within groups. According to this theory status tends to be derived from one of three
sources;
1. The power a person wields over others
people who controle the outcomes of a group through their power tend to be perceived as higher status
2. a person’s ability to contribute to a group’s goal
people who contributions are critical to group’s success tend to have high status
3. an indvidual’s personal characteristics
a person whose characteristics are positively valued by the group typically have higher status
Status has been shown to have some interesting effects on the power of norms and pressure to conform. For
instance, high-status members of groups are often given more freedom to deviate from norms that are other
group members. High-status people are also better able to resist conformity pressures than their lower-status
peers. An individual who is highly valued by a group who doesn’t need or care very much about social rewards

3

,the group provides is particularly able to pay minimal attention to conformity norms. As high-status individuals
they’re given a wider range of discretion. But this is true only as long as the high-status person’s activities
aren’t severly detrimental to group goal achievement. Interaction among members of groups is influenced by
status. We find, for instance, that high-status people tend to be more assertive, speak out more often, criticize
more, state more commands and interrupt more often. But status differences actually inhibit diversity of ideas
and creativity in groups because lower-status members tend to be less active participants in group discussions.
In situations in which lower-status members possess expertise and insights that could aid the group, their
expertise and insights are not likely to be fully utilized, thus reducing the group’s overall performance. It is
important for group members to believe that the status hierarchy is equitable. Perceived inequity creates
disequilibrium which results in various types of corrective behavior. People expect rewards to be proportionate
to costs incurred. Groups generally agree within themselves on status criteria and, hence, there is usually
concurrence in group ranking of individuals. However, individuals can find themselves in a conflict situation
when they move between groups whose status criteria are different or when they join groups whose members
have heterogeneous backgrounds. In groups made up of heterogeneous individuals or when heterogeneous
groups are forced to be interdependent, status differences may initiate conflict as the group attempts to
reconcile and align the differing hierarchies.

Group property 4: size
Does the size of a grup affect the group’s overall behavior? Yes, but the effect is contingent on what
dependent variables you look at. The evidence indicates, for instance, that smaller groups are faster at
completing tasks than are larger ones and that individuals perform better in smaller groups than in larger ones.
However, for groups engaged in problem solving, large groups consistently get better marks than their smaller
counterparts. Large groups, those with a dozen or more members, are good for gainging diverse input. So if the
goal of the group is fact-finding, larger groups should be more effective. On the other hand, smaller groups are
better at doing something productive with that input. Groups of approximately 7 members tend to be more
effective for taking acting. One of the most important findings related to size of group has been labelled social
loafing. Social loafing is the tendency for individuals 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 the individuals in that group. A common stereotype about groups is that
the sense of teamspirit spurs individual effort and enhances the group’s overall productivity. But that
stereotype may be wrong. Group performance increases with group size, but the addition of new members to
the group has diminishing returns on productivity. So more may be better in the sense that the total
productivity of a group of 4 is greater than that of 3 people, but the individual productivity of each group
member declines. What causes this social loafing effect? It may be due to a belief that others in the group are
not carrying their fair share. If you see others as lazy or inept, you can reestablish equity by reducing your
effort. Another explanation is the dispersion of responsibility. Because the results of the group cannot be
tribute to any single person, the relationship between an individuals input and the groups output is clouded. In
such situations, individuals may be tempted to become ‘free riders’ on coast on the groups efforts. In other
words, there will be a reduction in efficiency when individuals think their contribution cannot be measured.
The implications for OB of this effect on work groups are significant. When managers use collective work
situations to enhance morale and teamwork, they must alsof provide means by which they can indentify
individual efforts. If this isn’t done management must weigh the potential losses in productivity from using
groups against any possible gains in worker satisfaction. There are several ways to prevent social loafing:
 Set group goals so the group has a common purpose to strive to
 Increase intergroup competition, whicht again focuses the group on the shared outcome
 Engage in peer evaluation so that each persons contribution is evaluated by each group member
 Distribute group rewards based on each members unique contributions
None of these options are 100% succesfull in stopping social loafing, but should minimize it.

Group property 5: cohesiveness
Groups differ in their cohesiveness. Cohesiveness is the degree to which group members are attracted to each
other and are motivated to stay in the group. Cohesiveness is important because it has been found to be
related to group productivity. Studies consistently show that the relationship between cohesiveness and
productivity depends on the performance related norms established by the group. If performance-related
norms are high a cohesive group will be more productive than will a less cohesive group. But if cohesiveness is
high and performance norms are low, productivity will be low. If cohesiveness is low and performance norms


4

,are high, productivity increases but it increases less than the high cohesiveness/high-norms situations. Wat can
you do to encourage group cohesiveness?
 Make the group smaller
 Encourage agreement with group goals
 Increase the time members spend together
 Increase the status of the group and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership in the group
 Stimulate competition with other groups
 Hive rewards to the group rather than individual members
 Physically isolate the group

Tabel 1. Relationship between group cohesiveness, performance norms and productivity

Cohesiveness
High
Low

High productivity Moderate productivity
Performance norms




High


Low productivity Moderate to low productivity Low




Group decision making
Groups versus individual
Strengths of group decision making
 More complete information and knowledge
 Bring more input into the decision process
 Bring heterogeneity to the decision process
 Increased diversity of views
 Diverse views open up opportunity for more approaches and alternatives to be considered
 Increased acceptance of a solution

Weaknesses of group decision making
 Time consuming (take more time to come to a solution)
 Conformity pressures in groups
 Dominated by one or a few members
 Ambiguous responsibility (individual responsibility is less)

Effectiveness and efficiency
Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on te criteria you use to define effectiveness. In
terms of:
 Accuracy: group decisions are generally more accurate than the decisions of the average individual in a
group, but they are less accurate than the judgements of the most accurate group member
 Speed: individuals are superior
 Creativity: groups
 Degree of acceptance the final solution achieves the nog again goes to the group




5

, In terms of efficiency groups almost always stack up as a poor second to the individuals decision maker. With
few exceptions, group decision making consumers more work hours than an individual. The exceptions tend to
be the instances in which, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must
spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talking to people. Because groups can include members from
diverse areas, the time spent searching for information can be reduced. However, as we noted, these
advantages in efficiency tend to be the expection. Groups are generally less efficient than individuals.

Groupthink and group shift
There are two phenomenons that have the potentional to affect a groups ability to appraise alternatives
objectively and to arrive at quality decision solutions.
 Groupthink
Groupthink is a phenomenon in which the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of
alternative courses of action. It describes situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the
group from critically appraising unusual, minority or unpopular views. It describes a deterioration in an
individuals mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgement as a result of group pressures. We
have all seen the symptoms of the groupthink phenomenon: group members rationalize any
resistance to the assumptions they have made, members apply direct pressures on those who
momentarily express doubt about any of the groups shared views or who question the validity of
arguments supporting the alternative favoured by the majority, 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 misgivings and even minimizing to themselves the importance of their doubts and there
appears to be an illusion of unanimity. As members of a group we find it more plesant to be in
agreement than to be a disruptive force even is disruption is necessary to improve the effectiveness of
te group’s decision. Does groupthink attack all groups? No. Groupthink seems to occur when
- there is a clear group identity
- when members hold a positive image of their group that they want to protect
- when the group perceives a collective threat to this positive image
What can managers do to minimize groupthink?
- monitor group size
people grow more intimidated ad hesitant as group size increases. There is no magic number,
individuals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups get larger than 10.
- encourage group leaders to play an impartial role
leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid expressing their own.
- appoint one group member to play the role of devil’s advocate
a member that challenges the majority position and offer divergent perspectives.
- use exercise that stimulate active discussion o diverse alternatives without threatening the group
and intensifying identity protection.
 Groupshift
In some cases, group decisions are more conservative than individual decisions. More often, the shift
is toward greater risk. Groupshift is a change in decision risk between a groups decision and an
individual decision that a member within the group would make; the shift can be toward either
conservatism or 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 in which
they were already leaning before the discussion. So conservative types become more cautious and
more aggressive types take on more risk. The group discussion tends to exaggerate the initial position
of the group. The decision of the group reflects the dominant decision-making norm that develops
during the groups discussion. Whether the shift in the groups decision is toward greater caution or
more risk depends on the dominant prediscussion norm. The greater occurrence of the shift toward
risk has generated several explanations for the phenomenon:
- It has been argued, for instance, that 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 most societies in developed nations value risk, that they admire individuals
who are willing to take risks, and that group discussion motivates members to show that they are at
least willing as their peers to take risks.
- The most plausible explanation of the shift toward risk, however, seems to be that group diffuses
responsibility. group decisions free any single member from accountability for the groups final
choice.

6