Relationships and implications for creating effective working groups.

MEMBER CHARACTERISTICS

Any efficient and productive group must begin with group members who have effective personalities and appropriate skills. However, the relationship between member characteristics and group performance is interactionist, in the sense that the skills and personalities must also be appropriate for the particular group under consideration and for the particular task it is performing (Bowers, Braun, & Morgan, 1997; Cannon-Bowers, Salas, Tannenbaum, & Mathieu, 1995).

Member Skills

Groups such as sports teams, businesses, and political parties will naturally attempt to recruit the best people they can find to help them meet their goals. But the extent to which member skill influences group performance varies across different group tasks. On an automobile assembly line, performing the task requires only relatively minimal skills, and there is not a lot of coordination among the individuals involved. In this case, it is primarily the number of individuals who are working on the task that influences the group outcome. In other cases, such as a surgical team or a large corporation, the group includes individuals with a wide variety of different skills, each working at very different tasks. In cases such as this, communication and coordination among the group members is essential, and thus group process will be very important. As an example of variation in the importance of member skills, Jones (1974) found that the skill of the individual players accounted for 99 percent of the team performance on baseball teams, but that individual skill counted for only 35 percent of the team performance on basketball teams.

(Stangor, 2016, p. 241)

Member Personality

In addition to having different skills, people also differ in their personality orientations. Some are motivated to become part of the important groups in their lives and hope to make positive contributions to those groups, whereas others are more wary of group membership and prefer to meet their goals working alone. Furthermore, when they are in groups, different people may be expected to respond differently to group interactions, because they are each using the group to meet their individual social and personal goals.

Affiliation and Anxiety. Being a group member comes more easily to some than to others. Some individuals are naturally sociable, whereas for others interacting in groups is more difficult. Thus in some cases it may be useful to know about differences in the need for affiliation among the group members (McClelland, 1985; Smith, 1992). Research has found that people with high need for affiliation are more willing and interested in joining and working in groups and may accept other group members more quickly. They also report being happier when they are in groups than when they are alone. However, people with high needs for affiliation may also demand more of groups and may be more anxious or upset when the group doesn’t perform up to their expectations.

On the other hand, other individuals have more difficulty fitting into groups, and may even suffer from social anxiety (Leary, 1995; Schlenker & Leary, 1982). These individuals also want to be accepted by others, and they try to create positive relationships with them, but they are hampered in their abilities to create positive relations because they feel awkward and tense in social settings. Because they feel that they cannot blend in with the group, they end up staying quiet and remain in the background.

GROUP CHARACTERISTICS

Once a competent, and hopefully compatible, set of group members has been chosen, they are brought together and begin to do their job. Although it is to be expected that the member characteristics will have at least some influence on the effectiveness of this performance, the nature of the group itself will also be an important determinant of the group’s success.

(Stanger, 2016, p. 242)

Group Size

In general, it might expected that larger working groups will be more efficient and productive than smaller groups because of the increased energy and expertise that larger numbers of individuals bring with them (Frank & Anderson, 1971; Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993; Hill, 1982). Larger groups are also more able than smaller ones to diversify into specialized roles and activities, and this may make them efficient.However, as we saw in Chapter 9, larger groups are also more likely to suffer from coordination problems, such as difficulties in communication and time management (Frank & Anderson, 1971; Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979; Steiner, 1966). Larger groups may also be more likely to suffer motivation losses, including social loafing and free riding, and may particularly suffer on conjunctive tasks in which the poor performance of some members may hold them back. There is also more likely to be conflict among the members of larger groups (Hare, 1981; O’Dell, 1968), and members of larger groups may also find it more difficult to cooperate (Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Hamburger, Guyer, & Fox, 1975).Consistent with all of these suggestions, research has found that large groups may have problems that reduce their effectiveness. For instance, the amount of cheating and stealing is greater in larger groups (Diener, Fraser, Beaman, & Kelem, 1976; Erffmeyer, 1984), as is aggression and failure to help people in need (Latané, 1981; Mann, 1981). It is likely that these negative behaviors occur more frequently in larger groups because individuals feel less identifiable and more dispensable, because there is more diffusion of responsibility, and perhaps because identification with the group is lower.In the end, due to the difficulties that accompany large groups, it turns out that the most effective working groups are of relatively small size—about four or five members. Research suggests that in addition to being more efficient, working in groups of about this size is also more enjoyable to the members, in comparison to being in larger groups. However, the optimal group size will be different for different types of tasks. Groups in which the members have high ability may benefit more from larger group size (Yetton & Bottger, 1983), and groups that have greater commitment or social identity may suffer less from motivational losses (Hardy & Latané, 1988).

Group Member Diversity

As we have seen, most groups tend to be made up of individuals who are, by and large, similar to one another. This isn’t particularly surprising, because groups frequently come together as a result of common interests, values, and beliefs. Groups also tend to recruit new members who are similar to them, in the sense that they have personalities, beliefs, and goals that match those of the existing group members (Graves, 1995, 1988).

(Stangor, 2016, p. 243)

Advantages of Member Similarity.

There are some potential advantages for groups in which the members share personalities, beliefs, and values. Similarity among group members will increase group cohesiveness, and as a result groups may be more quickly able to reach consensus on the best approaches to performing a task, and may be able to make decisions more quickly and effectively. Indeed, at least some research has found that groups that are similar in terms of their personality characteristics work better together, and have less conflict among the group members, probably at least in part because they are able to communicate well and to effectively coordinate their efforts (Fisher, Bell, Dierdorff, & Belohlay, 2012; McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1996). Groups that are similar may also show better task performance (Bond & Shiu, 1997). As we saw in Chapter 3, in some cases the group may even ostracize or expel members who are dissimilar, and this is particularly likely when it is important that the group make a decision or finish a task quickly and the dissimilarity prevents achieving these goals (Kruglanski & Webster, 1991; Schachter, 1951).

Advantages of Member Diversity. Although similarity among the group members may be useful in some cases, groups that are characterized by diversity among the members, for instance, in terms of personalities, experiences, and abilities, might also have some potential advantages (Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995; Magjuka & Baldwin, 1991; Maznevski, 1994; Pelz, 1956).For one thing, diverse interests, opinions, and goals among the group members, assuming that people are willing to express them, may reduce tendencies toward conformity and groupthink by providing a wider range of opinions. Diverse groups may also be able to take advantage of the wider range of resources, ideas, and viewpoints that diversity provides, perhaps by increasing discussion of the issue, therefore improving creative thinking (Moreland, 1996). Such benefits may be particularly likely when the group has organized frameworks for understanding, accepting, and making use of diversity (Distefano & Maznevski, 2000). Supporting this expectation, Nemeth, Mosier, and Chiles (1992) found that groups that were believed to be made up of members with different opinions produced more creative solutions.Also supporting the utility of diverse groups, Bantel and Jackson (1989) appraised the diversity of top management teams in 199 banks and found that the greater the diversity of the team, in terms of age, education, and length of time in the team, the greater the number of administrative innovations. Diversity has also been found to relate to positive attitudes among the group members (Gurin, Pena, Lopez, & Nagda, 1999).Extreme levels of diversity, however, may be problematic for group process. One difficulty is that it may be harder for diverse groups to get past the formation stage and begin to work on the task, and once they get started it may take more time for them to make a decision. More diverse groups may also show more turnover over time (Wagner, Pfeffer, & O’Reilly, 1984), and group diversity may also produce increased conflict within the group (Jackson et al., 1995; Moreland, 1996).

(Stangor, 2016, p. 244)

Gender and Ethnic Diversity.

One important type of diversity is the gender and ethnic membership of the group members (Hare, 1976; Shaw, 1981). In terms of potential benefits, men and women bring different orientations to the group, as do members of different ethnic groups, and this diversity in background and skills may help group performance. Wendy Wood (1987) found that there was at least some, although not statistically significant, evidence that groups composed of both men and women together tended to outperform same-sex groups (either all males or all females), at least in part because they brought different, complementary skills to the group. However, she also found that groups made up only of men performed well on tasks that involved task-oriented activities, whereas groups of women did better on tasks that involved social interaction. Thus, as expected by interactionist approaches, the congruency of members and tasks seems more important than the characteristics of the members or the group process alone.However, although ethnic and gender diversity may have at least some benefits for groups, it also creates some potential costs (Rudmin, 2003). In a study of 151 work groups, Tsui, Egan, and O’Reilly (1992) found that groups consisting of individuals from diverse social categories had lower cohesion and lower social identity in comparison to groups that were more homogeneous. Furthermore, if there are differences in status between the members of the different ethnic or gender groups (such as when men have higher status than women), this may lead members of the group with lower status to feel that they are being treated unfairly and that they do not have equal opportunities for advancement, and this may produce intergroup conflict. Problems may also result if the number of individuals from one group is particularly small. When there are only a few (token) members of one group, these individuals may be seen and treated stereotypically by the members of the larger group (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Fiske, 1993; Kanter, 1977). Taken together then, although diverse groups may have some advantages, the positive effects of group diversity seem to be small (Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000; Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007). To overcome the difficulties of diversity, group leaders must help group members value diversity and overcome stereotypes associated with different social categories (Crisp & Turner, 2011).GROUP PROCESSBecause group process is such an important determinant of group performance, increasing group productivity frequently involves teaching and motivating the group members to work together well and efficiently. Training is necessary because group performance is not necessarily natural; groups need to learn how to go about their tasks most efficiently, and group members need to learn how to get along with one another (Morris & Hackman, 1969; Swezey & Salas, 1992).

(Stangor, 2016, p. 245)

Incentives

Perhaps the most straightforward approach to increasing group performance is to provide incentives, either to the individual group members or to the group as a whole, for better performance. Individual rewards are perhaps most common—corporations reward their employees with performance-based raises and bonuses, and players on sports teams are paid according to their successes on the field. Group incentives are also used, however—for instance, a bonus may be paid to every member of a sales team only if the group achieves its sales goals.Individual Incentives. Although individual incentives may increase the effort of the individual group members, and thus enhance group performance, they also have some potential disadvantages for group process. One potential problem is that the group members will compare their own rewards with those of others (remember our discussion of social comparison theory in Chapter 4). It might be hoped that individuals would use their coworkers as models (upward comparison), which would inspire them to work harder. For instance, when corporations set up “employee of the week” programs, they are attempting to develop this type of positive comparison. On the other hand, if group members believe that others are being rewarded more than they are for what they perceive as the same work (downward comparison), they may change their behavior to attempt to restore equity. Perhaps they will attempt to work harder in to receive greater rewards for themselves. But they may instead decide to reduce their effort to match what they perceive as a low level of current pay ( Baron & Pfeffer, 1994; Crosby, 1976). It has been found, for instance, that job absenteeism is increased when employees make unfavorable comparisons between their own rewards and those of others (Geurts, Buunk, & Schaufeli, 1994).Group Incentives. Group incentives are used in business and other organizations in which it is desired to create cohesive, cooperating groups (for instance, a sales or manufacturing team). One review (Honeywell-Johnson & Dickinson, 1999) found that if the incentives are equally divided among the group members they are able to create and sustain high levels of productivity and employee satisfaction. Moreover, the effects of group incentives were comparable to those reported for individual incentives. Although some studies found that differentially divided group incentives resulted in higher performance than individual incentives and equally divided group rewards, these procedures were perceived as less fair and satisfying, perhaps due to their competitive nature. Thus, group incentives may be useful, although they may create social loafing, free riding, and perceptions of unfairness. Perhaps the most useful type of incentive, and the one that is likely to have the most positive outcome on task performance, is to increase the group members’ interest in the task itself. As we saw in Chapter 9, social loafing is reduced when the group members feel that they have autonomy to work on the task at their own speed and using their own approaches and when they feel that they are performing an important, whole, and visible piece of the work.

(Stangor, 2016, p. 246)

Planning

One phase of group decision making that is frequently overlooked, and which can have either positive or negative consequences for group performance, is that of initial planning or orienting (Fisher, 2014). Newly formed groups, such as juries or business groups, frequently dive right into their task without first considering how they should go about it. In fact, group members may be so excited or interested in performing the task that they think they should not waste their time on what appears to be fruitless planning activity (Hackman & Morris, 1975). Research suggests, however, that at least in some cases, spending some time in planning before beginning the task performance itself can have positive outcomes on decision making (Weingart, 1992; Wittenbaum, Vaughan, & Stasser, 1998). For instance, Hirokawa (1980) found that groups that planned ahead of time made more accurate decisions on the moon-landing task (see Chapter 8). Furthermore, other research has found that when groups first discuss the procedures they are going to use, they later report being more satisfied with the outcomes and with the group process itself (Hackman & Morris, 1975; Vinokur, Burnstein, Sechrest, & Wortman, 1985).However, planning is not always necessary or even useful. In one test of its importance, Richard Hackman (1974) convinced research participants in groups either to spend time thinking about a strategy before they began to work on the task or convinced them not to waste time on planning. Furthermore, in some groups, the information given to the participants was shared, such that all participants had the same information, whereas in other cases, the information was not shared. Hackman assumed that planning would be more useful where information is held only by some members. As shown in Figure 10.2, Hackman found that planning improved performance in the unshared information condition but harmed performance (presumably because it led to wasted time) in the shared information condition

.BREAKING INEFFICIENT NORMS

One difficulty with many working groups is that, once they have developed a set of plans or strategies, these plans become established social norms, and it becomes very difficult for the group to later adopt new, alternative, and perhaps better, strategies (recall, however, that most groups do change their course of action midway through their duration). As a result, even when the group is having difficulty performing effectively, it may nevertheless stick with its original methods.The development of specific strategies that allow groups to break out of their existing patterns may in some cases be useful. Hackman and Morris (1975) suggest that having outside observers, particularly those who are experts in group process, provide feedback about relevant norms, and encouraging the groups to discuss them, can be helpful. Process consultation involves bringing in an outside expert who observes the group and potentially confronts the members about their strategies (Schmuck, 1995). In some cases, the consultation may involve restructuring the group, for instance, by changing the status hierarchy or social norms, which may help reduce conflict and increase effective communication and coordination.

(Stangor, 2016, p. 247)

GOAL SETTING

One aspect of planning that has been found to be strongly related to positive group performance is the goals that the group uses to guide their work. Groups that set specific, difficult, and yet attainable goals (for instance, “improve sales by 10 percent over the next six months”) are much more effective than groups that are given goals that are not very clear (“let’s sell as much as we can!”; Locke & Latham, 2013). Goals have been found to be as or more important in determining performance than are other incentives, including rewards such as praise and money.

(Stangor, 2016, p. 248)

Setting goals appears to be effective because it increases member effort and expectations of success, because it improves cooperation and communication among the members, and because it produces better planning and more accurate monitoring of the group’s work. Specific goals may also result in increased commitment to the group (Weldon & Weingart, 1993). When the goals are successfully attained, there is a resulting feeling of accomplishment, group identity, pride, a commitment to the task, and a motivation to set even higher goals. Moreover, there is at least some evidence that it may be useful to let the groups choose their own goals rather than assigning them to them. Groups tend to select more challenging goals, and, because they have set them themselves, they do not need to be convinced to accept them as appropriate. However, even assigned goals are effective as long as they are seen as legitimate and attainable (Latham, Winters, & Locke, 1994).One potential problem associated with setting goals is that the goals may turn out to be too difficult. If the goals are set too high to be reached, or if the group perceives that they are too high even if they are not, the group may become demoralized and reduce its effort. Indeed, groups that are characterized by a sense of collective efficacy—the belief that they can accomplish the tasks given to them—have been found to perform better (Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993; Little & Madigan, 1997; Silver & Bufanio, 1996, 1997). Fortunately, over time, groups frequently adjust their goals to be attainable and yet difficult to achieve (Zander, 1971/1996).IMPROVING COMMUNICATIONIf groups are going to make effective decisions they will need to communicate effectively. Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, research suggests that this is not always the case.Quantity and Quality of DiscussionIn general, the more the group discusses and considers the issue at hand, the better the group’s final decision will be. If the group does not have enough time to gather and consider all of the relevant information (for instance, when it is under pressure to make a decision quickly), this may result in a premature and potentially poor decision (Parks & Cowlin, 1995; Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). However, even if the group does have sufficient time and resources, it may nevertheless fall victim to the illusion of group effectivity, decide that is has reached a good decision, and stop discussing the issue prematurely before it has fully considered all of the relevant information. In still other cases, the amount of information available about the decision at hand may be overwhelming, and the group may become fatigued before it has finished organizing and discussing it. Another difficulty is that the group discussion may not always focus on the most important and relevant information, but may rather include irrelevant or trivial details. These findings suggest that one of the most important goals for successful leaders is to be aware of the amount and quality of information available to the group and to attempt to match these to the group’s capabilities (Bonner & Baumann, 2012).

(Stangor, 2016, p. 249)

The Problem of Unshared Information

Although group discussion generally improves the quality of a group’s decisions, this will only be true if the group discusses the information that is most useful to the decision that needs to be made. One difficulty is that groups tend to pay attention to and discuss some types of information more than others (Halevy & Chou, 2014; Stasser & Vaughan, 2013; Wittenbaum & Bowman, 2005). As we saw in our discussion of groupthink in Chapter 8, for instance, the neglect of relevant information may sometimes be caused by conformity pressures that lead the group to consider only information that fits existing group norms or goals, and to avoid considering information that suggests that the group is not performing well.In addition to motivational pressures to consider only some information, discussion is also influenced by the way the relevant information is originally shared among the group members. The problem is that group members tend to discuss information that they all have access to while ignoring equally important information that is available only to a few of the members (Reimer, Reimer, & Czienskowski, 2010). Groups tend to make poor decisions when the information is not adequately shared (Larson, Christensen, Abbott, & Franz, 1996; Larson, Foster-Fishman, & Keys, 1994; Levine, Thompson, & Messick, 2013; Stasser & Stewart, 1992; Stasser & Titus, 1985; Stewart & Stasser, 1995).In one demonstration of the tendency for groups to preferentially discuss information that all of the group members know about, Stasser and Titus (1985) used an experimental design based on the hidden profile task, as shown in Figure 10.3. Students read descriptions of candidates for a hypothetical student body presidential election and then met in groups to discuss and pick the best candidate. The information about the candidates was arranged such that one of the candidates (in this case, candidate A) had the more positive qualities, (a1, a2, a3, and a4), in comparison to the other candidate (in this case, candidate B with only three positive qualities: b1, b2, b3). Reflecting this superiority, in groups in which all of the members were given all of the information about the candidates, the members almost always chose the candidate with the most positive qualities after their discussion.However, in some cases the experimenters made the task more difficult by creating a “hidden profile,” in which each member of the group received only part of the information. Thus, although all the information was potentially available, it was necessary that it be properly shared for the group members to make the correct choice. In the cases in which the information was unshared, less than half of the groups chose the candidate with the most positive qualities, whereas the others chose the inferior candidate. This occurred because the information that was not originally shared among all of the group members was never discussed, although the group members had access to all of the positive information collectively. Furthermore, this bias occurred even in participants who were given explicit instructions to be sure to avoid expressing their initial preferences and to review all of the available facts (Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna, 1989). Subsequent research has shown that larger groups are more prone to difficulties in sharing information than are smaller groups (Stasser, Taylor, & Hanna, 1989).

(Stangor, 2016, p. 250)

CHAPTER SUMMARY

The effective performance of groups is dependent on both member and task characteristics, as well as group process. An understanding of these basic principles will help groups be efficient. The skills and personalities of the group members, including ethnic and gender differences, constitute the member characteristics that must be considered. In terms of group process, group size is important—most effective groups are of a relatively small size. Group diversity has both positive and negative effects on group performance.Groups must be trained and motivated to perform to their highest level of efficiency. One approach is to provide incentives, either to the groups or their members. Making the task interesting and challenging provides one important incentive. Whether the group engages in a planning session before it begins its task can influence the group outcome. Providing specific and attainable goals increases productivity.Many groups do not effectively share the information that they have available to them, in part because they discuss information that is available to all of the group members, while tending to ignore information that is unique to only some group members. Leaders must work to ensure effective and complete communication. Groups also differ in terms of their ability to get their decisions implemented and in terms of member satisfaction.Juries, teams, and virtual groups are three examples of particular working groups that can be understood in terms of the general principles of group decision making and task performance. For each, the member characteristics and group process determine their outcomes.

(Stsngor, 2016, p. 261)

Stagnor, C. (2016). Social Groups in Action and Interaction (2nd ed.) Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis.