Organizational behavior

["298 PART 2 The Individual piece-rate pay plan A pay plan in which effect on job performance. Even worse, it adversely affects high performers more workers are paid a fixed sum for each unit of than other employees. It very likely increases employees\u2019 perception that pay is subjective, which can be demotivating. While individual pay amounts may not production completed. need to be broadcast to restore the balance, if general pay categories are made public and employees feel variable pay is linked objectively to their performance, the motivational effects of variable pay can be retained.76 The fluctuation in variable pay is what makes these programs attractive to management. It turns part of an organization\u2019s fixed labor costs into a variable cost, thus reducing expenses when performance declines. For example, when the U.S. economy encountered a recession in 2001 and again in 2008, compa- nies with variable pay were able to reduce their labor costs much faster than others.77 When pay is tied to performance, the employee\u2019s earnings also reflect their contributions rather than being a form of entitlement. Over time, low performers\u2019 pay stagnates, while high performers enjoy pay increases commen- surate with their contributions. Let\u2019s examine the different types of variable-pay programs in more detail. Piece-Rate Pay The piece-rate pay plan has long been popular as a means of compensating production workers with a fixed sum for each unit of production completed, but it can be used in any organizational setting where the outputs are similar enough to be evaluated by quantity. A pure piece-rate plan provides no base salary and pays the employee only for what he or she produces. Ball- park workers selling peanuts and soda are frequently paid piece-rate. If they sell 40\u00a0bags of peanuts at $1 each for their earnings, their take is $40. The more peanuts they sell, the more they earn. Alternatively, piece-rate plans are some- times distributed to sales teams, so a ballpark worker makes money on a portion of the total number of bags of peanuts sold by the group during a game. Piece-rate plans are known to produce higher productivity and wages, so they can be attractive to organizations and motivating for workers.78 In fact, one major Chinese university increased its piece-rate pay for articles by professors and realized 50 percent increased research productivity.79 In the workplace, employees most likely to be motivated by piece-rate plans are managers and more tenured workers. Low-performing workers are generally not interested in piece-rate pay, for obvious reasons\u2014they won\u2019t get paid much! The chief concern of both individual and team piece-rate workers is finan- cial risk. A recent experiment in Germany found that 68 percent of risk-averse individuals prefer an individual piece-rate system, and that lower performers prefer team piece-rate pay. Why? The authors suggested risk-averse and high- performing individuals would rather take their chances on pay based on what they can control (their own work) because they are concerned others will slack off in a team setting.80 This is a valid concern, as we will discuss in the next chapter. Organizations, on the other hand, should verify that their piece-rate plans are indeed motivating to individuals. European research has suggested that when the pace of work is determined by uncontrollable outside factors such as customer requests, rather than internal factors such as coworkers, targets, and machines, a piece rate plan is not motivating.81 Either way, managers must be mindful of the motivation for workers to decrease quality in order to increase their speed of output. They should also be aware that by rewarding volume, piece-rate plans increase the probability of workplace injuries.82 Thus, while piece-rate plans can be a powerful motivator in many organizational settings, an obvious limitation is that they\u2019re not feasible for many jobs. An emergency room (ER) doctor and nurse can earn significant sala- ries regardless of the number of patients they see or their patients\u2019 outcomes. Would it be better to pay them only if their patients fully recover? It seems unlikely that most would accept such a deal, and it might cause unanticipated","Motivation: From\u00a0Concepts to Applications CHAPTER 8 299 merit-based pay plan A pay plan based consequences as well (such as ERs turning away patients with terminal diseases on performance appraisal ratings. or life-threatening injuries). So, although incentives are motivating and rele- vant for some jobs, it is unrealistic to think they work universally. bonus A pay plan that rewards employees Merit-Based Pay A merit-based pay plan pays for individual performance based for recent performance rather than historical on performance appraisal ratings. A main advantage is that high performers performance. can get bigger raises. If designed correctly, merit-based plans let individuals per- ceive a strong relationship between their performance and their rewards.83 Most large organizations have merit pay plans, especially for salaried employ- ees. Merit pay is slowly taking hold in the public sector. For example, most U.S. government employees are unionized, and the unions that represent them have usually demanded that pay raises be based solely on seniority. Claiming a new era of accountability, however, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie implemented merit pay for teachers. The Newark teachers union approved the plan, which included funding from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.84 In another unusual move, New York City\u2019s public hospital system pays doctors based on how well they reduce costs, increase patient satisfaction, and improve the quality of care.85 A move away from merit pay, on the other hand, is coming from some orga- nizations that don\u2019t feel it separates high and low performers enough. \u201cThere\u2019s a very strong belief and there\u2019s evidence and academic research that shows that variable pay does create focus among employees,\u201d said Ken Abosch, a com- pensation manager at human resource consulting firm Aon Hewitt. But when the annual review and raise are months away, the motivation of this reward for high performers diminishes. Even companies that have retained merit pay are rethinking the allocation.86 Although you might think a person\u2019s average level of performance is the key factor in merit pay decisions, the projected level of future performance also plays a role. One study found that National Basketball Association (NBA) players whose performance was on an upward trend were paid more than their average performance would have predicted. Managers of all organizations may unknowingly be basing merit pay decisions on how they think employees will perform, which may result in overly optimistic (or pessimistic) pay decisions.87 Despite their intuitive appeal, merit pay plans have several limitations. One is that they are typically based on an annual performance appraisal and thus are only as valid as the performance ratings, which are often subjective. This brings up issues of discrimination, as we discussed in Chapter 2. Research indi- cates that African American employees receive lower performance ratings than white employees, women\u2019s ratings are higher than men\u2019s, and there are demo- graphic differences in the distribution of salary increases, even with all other factors equal.88 Another limitation is that the pay-raise pool of available funds fluctuates on economic or other conditions that have little to do with individ- ual performance. For instance, a colleague at a top university who performed very well in teaching and research was given a pay raise of $300. Why? Because the pay-raise pool was very small. Yet that amount is more of a cost-of-living increase than pay-for-performance. Lastly, unions typically resist merit pay plans. Relatively few teachers are covered by merit pay for this reason. Instead, seniority-based pay, which gives all employees the same raises, predominates. The concept and intention of merit pay\u2014that employees are paid for per- formance\u2014is sound. For employee motivation purposes, however, merit pay should be only one part of a performance recognition program. Bonus An annual bonus is a significant component of total compensation for many jobs. Once reserved for upper management, bonus plans are now routinely offered to employees in all levels of the organization. The incentive effects should be higher than those of merit pay because rather than paying for","300 PART 2 The Individual Chinese Internet firm Tencent Holdings rewards employees with attractive in- centives that include cash bonuses for lower-ranking employees. The young men shown here were among 5,000 employees who received a special bonus tucked in red envelopes and personally handed out by Tencent\u2019s CEO and co-founder Pony Ma. Source: Keita Wen sz\/Imaginechina via AP Images profit-sharing plan An organization- previous performance now rolled into base pay, bonuses reward recent perfor- wide program that distributes compensation mance (merit pay is cumulative, but the increases are generally much smaller than bonus amounts). When times are bad, firms can cut bonuses to reduce based on some established formula designed compensation costs. Workers on Wall Street, for example, saw their average bonus drop by more than a third as their firms faced greater scrutiny.89 around a company\u2019s profitability. Bonus plans have a clear upside: they are motivating for workers. As an example, a recent study in India found that when a higher percentage of overall pay was reserved for the potential bonuses of managers and employees, produc- tivity increased.90 This example also highlights the downside of bonuses: They leave employees\u2019 pay more vulnerable to cuts. This is problematic especially when employees depend on bonuses or take them for granted. \u201cPeople have begun to live as if bonuses were not bonuses at all but part of their expected annual income,\u201d said Jay Lorsch, a Harvard Business School professor. KeySpan Corp., a 9,700-employee utility company in New York, combined yearly bonuses with a smaller merit-pay raise. Elaine Weinstein, KeySpan\u2019s senior vice president of HR, credits the plan with changing the culture from \u201centitlement to meritocracy.\u201d91 The way bonuses and rewards are categorized also affects peoples\u2019 moti- vation. Although it is a bit manipulative, splitting rewards and bonuses into categories\u2014even if the categories are meaningless\u2014may increase motivation.92 Why? Because people are more likely to feel they missed out on a reward if they don\u2019t receive one from each category, and then work harder to earn rewards from more categories. Profit-sharing Plan A profit-sharing plan distributes compensation based on some established formula designed around a company\u2019s profitability. Compensation can be direct cash outlays or, particularly for top manag- ers, allocations of stock options. When you read about executives like Mark Zuckerberg, who accepts an absurdly modest $1 salary, remember that many executives are granted generous stock options. In fact, Zuckerberg has made as much as $2.3\u00a0billion after cashing out some of his stock options.93 Of course, the vast majority of profit-sharing plans are not so grand in scale. For example, Jacob Luke started his own lawn-mowing business at age 13. He employed his brother Isaiah and friend Marcel and paid them each 25 percent of the profits he made on each yard.","Motivation: From\u00a0Concepts to Applications CHAPTER 8 301 employee stock ownership plan Studies generally support the idea that organizations with profit-sharing (ESOP) A company-established benefits plans have higher levels of profitability than those without them.94 These plans plan in which employees acquire stock, often have also been linked to higher levels of employee commitment, especially in small organizations.95 Profit-sharing at the organizational level appears to have at below-market prices, as part of positive impacts on employee attitudes; employees report a greater feeling of psychological ownership.96 Recent research in Canada indicates that profit- their benefits. sharing plans motivate individuals to higher job performance when they are used in combination with other pay-for-performance plans.97 Obviously, profit sharing does not work when there is no reported profit per se, such as in non- profit organizations, or often in the public sector. However, profit sharing may make sense for many organizations, large or small. employee stock ownership Plan An employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) is a company-established benefit plan in which employees acquire stock, often at below-market prices, as part of their benefits. Research on ESOPs indicates they increase employee satisfaction and innovation.98 ESOPs have the poten- tial to increase job satisfaction only when employees psychologically experience ownership.99 Even so, ESOPs may not inspire lower absenteeism or greater motivation,100 perhaps because the employee\u2019s actual monetary benefit comes with cashing in the stock at a later date. Thus, employees need to be kept regu- larly informed of the status of the business and have the opportunity to positively influence it in order to feel motivated toward higher personal performance.101 ESOPs for top management can reduce unethical behavior. For instance, CEOs are less likely to manipulate firm earnings reports to make themselves sweatshops and Worker safety an ethical Choice Industrialized countries have come a several U.S. stores, including Walmart, was manufactured at the Rana Plaza long way in terms of worker safety killed 112 workers. In April 2013, the plant donated to the International and compensation. The number of collapse of Rana Plaza, home to a num- Labour Organization fund for survivors. worker-related injuries has decreased ber of garment factories, killed more substantially over generations, and than 1,100. And in May 2013, a fire at With the rise of CSR initiatives, what many employees earn better wages than the Tung Hai Sweater Company killed 8 is the responsibility of organizations in the past. Unfortunately, the same can- workers. An investigation of the Rana toward the working conditions of their not be said for all parts of the world. Plaza incident revealed that the building subcontractors, at home or abroad? had been constructed without permits, Professor Cindi Fukami asks, \u201cShould To keep costs down, many Western using substandard materials. Although [companies] outsource the production companies and their managers turn to workers reported seeing and hearing of these items made under conditions suppliers in developing nations, where cracks in the structure of the building, that wouldn\u2019t be approved of in the people have little choice but to work for they were ordered back to work. United States, but . . . are perfectly legal low pay and no benefits, in top-down in the situation where they are [pro- management structures without par- In response, some companies duced]?\u201d There is clearly not an easy ticipative management opportunities or such as PVH, owner of Tommy Hilfiger solution. unions to represent them. Unregulated and Calvin Klein, as well as Tchibo, and even unsafe working conditions are a German retailer, have signed the Sources: B. Kennedy, \u201cThe Bangladesh Fac- common, especially in the garment in- legally binding \u201cIndustriALL\u201d proposal, tory Collapse One Year Later,\u201d CBS, April 23, dustry. However, three recent accidents which requires overseas manufactur- 2014, http:\/\/www.cbsnews.com\/news\/the- in Bangladesh are raising questions ers to conduct building and fire-safety bangladesh-factory-collapse-one-year-later\/; about the ethics of tolerating and sup- inspections regularly and to make their J. O\u2019Donnell and C. Macleod, \u201cLatest Bangla- porting such conditions. In November findings public. However, many other desh Fire Puts New Pressure on Retailers,\u201d 2012, a fire at the Tazreen Fashion fac- companies have not signed, and none USA Today, May 9, 2013, www.usatoday.com; tory that made low-cost garments for of the 15 companies whose clothing and T. Hayden, \u201cTom Hayden: Sweatshops At- tract Western Investors,\u201d USA Today, May 17, 2013, www.usatoday.com.","302 PART 2 The Individual look good in the short run when they have an ownership share.102 Of course, not all companies want ESOPs, and they won\u2019t work in all situations, but they can be an important part of an organization\u2019s motivational strategy. evaluation of variable Pay Do variable-pay programs increase motivation and productivity? Generally yes, but that doesn\u2019t mean everyone is equally motivat- ed by them.103 Many organizations have more than one variable pay element in operation, such as an ESOP and bonuses, so managers should evaluate the effectiveness of the overall plan in terms of the employee motivation gained from each element separately and from all elements together. Managers should monitor their employees\u2019 performance-reward expectancy, since a combination of elements that makes employees feel that their greater performance will yield them greater rewards will be the most motivating.104 8-6 show how flexible benefits Using Benefits to Motivate Employees turn benefits into motivators. Now that we have discussed what and how to pay employees, let\u2019s discuss two oth- er motivating factors organizations must decide: (1) what benefits and choices flexible benefits A benefits plan that to offer (such as flexible benefits), and (2) how to construct employee recogni- allows each employee to put together a tion programs. Like pay, benefits are both a provision and a motivator. Whereas benefits package individually tailored to his organizations of yesteryear issued a standard package to every employee, con- or her own needs and situation. temporary leaders understand that each employee values benefits differently. A\u00a0flexible program turns the benefits package into a motivational tool. Flexible Benefits: developing a Benefits Package Todd E. is married and has three young children; his wife is at home full-time. His Citigroup colleague Allison M. is married too, but her husband has a high- paying job with the federal government, and they have no children. Todd is concerned about having a good medical plan and enough life insurance to sup- port his family in case it\u2019s needed. In contrast, Allison\u2019s husband already has her medical needs covered on his plan, and life insurance is a low priority. Allison is more interested in extra vacation time and long-term financial benefits such as a tax-deferred savings plan. A standardized benefits package would be unlikely to meet the needs of Todd and Allison well. Citigroup can, however, cover both sets of needs with flexible benefits. Consistent with expectancy theory\u2019s thesis that organizational rewards should be linked to each employee\u2019s goals, flexible benefits individualize rewards by allowing each employee to choose the compensation package that best satis- fies his or her current needs and situation. Flexible benefits can accommodate differences in employee needs based on age, marital status, partner\u2019s benefit status, and number and age of dependents. Benefits in general can be a motivator for a person to go to work, and for a person to choose one organization over another. But are flexible benefits more motivating than traditional plans? It\u2019s difficult to tell. Some organizations that have moved to flexible plans report increased employee retention, job satisfaction, and productivity. However, flexible benefits may not substitute for higher salaries when it comes to motivation.105 Furthermore, as more organizations worldwide adopt flexible benefits, the individual motivation they produce will likely decrease (the plans will be seen as a standard work provision). The downsides of flexible\u00a0benefit plans may be obvious: They may be more costly to administrate, and identifying the motivational impact of different provisions is challenging.","Motivation: From\u00a0Concepts to Applications CHAPTER 8 303 Given the intuitive motivational appeal of flexible benefits, it may be sur- prising that their usage is not yet global. In China, only a limited percentage of companies offer flexible plans,106 as in other Asian countries.107 Almost all major corporations in the United States offer them, and a recent survey of 211 Canadian organizations found that 60 percent offer flexible benefits, up from 41 percent in 2005.108 A similar survey of firms in the United Kingdom found that nearly all major organizations were offering flexible benefits programs, with options ranging from supplemental medical insurance to holiday trading (with coworkers), discounted bus travel, and child care assistance.109 8-7 Identify the motivational Using Intrinsic Rewards to Motivate benefits of intrinsic Employees rewards. We have discussed motivating employees through job design and by the extrinsic employee recognition program A plan rewards of pay and benefits. On an organizational level, are those the only ways to encourage specific employee behaviors to motivate employees? Not at all! We would be remiss if we overlooked intrin- by formally appreciating specific employee sic rewards organizations can provide, such as employee recognition programs, contributions. discussed next. employee Recognition Programs Laura makes $8.50 per hour working at her fast-food job in Pensacola, Florida, and the job isn\u2019t very challenging or interesting. Yet Laura talks enthusiastically about the job, her boss, and the company that employs her. \u201cWhat I like is the fact that Guy [her supervisor] appreciates the effort I make. He compliments me regularly in front of the other people on my shift, and I\u2019ve been chosen Employee of the Month twice in the past six months. Did you see my picture on that plaque on the wall?\u201d Organizations are increasingly realizing what Laura knows: Recognition programs and other ways of increasing an employee\u2019s intrinsic motivation work. An employee recognition program is a plan to encourage specific behaviors by formally appreciating specific employee contributions. Employee recognition programs range from a spontaneous and private thank-you to widely publicized formal programs in which the procedures for attaining recognition are clearly identified. As companies and government organizations face tighter budgets, nonfinan- cial incentives become more attractive. Everett Clinic in Washington State uses a combination of local and centralized initiatives to encourage managers to recog- nize employees.110 Employees and managers give \u201cHero Grams\u201d and \u201cCaught in the Act\u201d cards to colleagues for exceptional accomplishments at work. Part of the incentive is simply to receive recognition, but there are also drawings for prizes based on the number of cards a person receives. Multinational corporations like Symantec Corporation, Intuit, and Panduit have also increased their use of recognition programs. Symantec claims it increased engagement 14 percent in less than a year due to the Applause recognition program administered by Globoforce, a corporation that implements employee recognition programs.111 Centralized programs across multiple offices in different countries can help ensure that all employees, regardless of where they work, can be recognized for their contribution to the work environment.112 Recognition programs are com- mon in Canadian and Australian firms as well.113 A few years ago, 1,500 employees were surveyed in a variety of work settings to find out what they considered the most powerful workplace motivator. Their response? Recognition, recognition, and more recognition. Other research","304 PART 2 The Individual suggests financial incentives may be more motivating in the short term, but in the long run nonfinancial incentives work best.114 Surprisingly, there is not a lot of research on the motivational outcomes or global usage of employee rec- ognition programs. However, recent studies indicate that employee recognition programs are associated with self-esteem, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction,115 and the broader outcomes from intrinsic motivation are well documented. An obvious advantage of recognition programs is that they are inexpen- sive: praise is free!116 With or without financial rewards, they can be highly motivating to employees. Despite the increased popularity of such programs, though, critics argue they are highly susceptible to political manipulation by management. When applied to jobs for which performance factors are relatively objective, such as sales, recognition programs are likely to be per- ceived by employees as fair. In most jobs, however, performance criteria aren\u2019t self-evident, which allows managers to manipulate the system and recognize their favorites. Abuse can undermine the value of recognition programs and demoralize employees. Therefore, where formal recognition programs are used, care must be taken to ensure fairness. Where they are not, it is important to motivate employees by consistently recognizing their performance efforts. WaTCh IT! If your professor has assigned this, go to the Assignments section of mymanagementlab.com to complete the video exercise titled Zappos: Motivating Employees Through Company Culture. Summary As we\u2019ve seen in the chapter, understanding what motivates individuals is ulti- mately key to organizational performance. Employees whose differences are rec- ognized, who feel valued, and who have the opportunity to work in jobs tailored to their strengths and interests will be motivated to perform at the highest levels. Employee participation also can increase employee productivity, commitment to work goals, motivation, and job satisfaction. However, we cannot overlook the powerful role of organizational rewards in influencing motivation. Pay, benefits, and intrinsic rewards must be carefully and thoughtfully designed in order to enhance employee motivation toward positive organizational outcomes. Implications for Managers \u25cf\u25cf Recognize individual differences. Spend the time necessary to understand what\u2019s important to each employee. Design jobs to align with individual needs and maximize their motivation potential. \u25cf\u25cf Use goals and feedback. You should give employees firm, specific goals, and they should get feedback on how well they are faring in pursuit of those goals. \u25cf\u25cf Allow employees to participate in decisions that affect them. Employees can contribute to setting work goals, choosing their own benefits pack- ages, and solving productivity and quality problems. \u25cf\u25cf Link rewards to performance. Rewards should be contingent on perfor- mance, and employees must perceive the link between the two. \u25cf\u25cf Check the system for equity. Employees should perceive that individual effort and outcomes explain differences in pay and other rewards.","Motivation: From\u00a0Concepts to Applications CHAPTER 8 305 \u201cFace-time\u201d Matters PoInt CounterPoInt A lthough allowing people to work from home is gaining popu- Please. so-called face-time is overrated. If all managers do is larity, telecommuting will only hurt firms and their employers. reward employees who hang around the office the longest, sure, employees say they\u2019re happier when their organization they aren\u2019t being very good managers. Those who brag about allows them the flexibility to work wherever they choose, but who the 80\u00a0hours they put in at the office (being sure to point out they wouldn\u2019t like to hang around at home in their pajamas pretending to were there on weekends) aren\u2019t necessarily the top performers. Being work? I know plenty of colleagues who say, with a wink, that they\u2019re present is not the same thing as being efficient. taking off to \u201cwork from home\u201d the rest of the day. Who knows whether they are really contributing? Besides, there are all sorts of benefits for employees and employers who take advantage of telecommuting practices. For one, it\u2019s seen The bigger problem is the lack of face-to-face interaction between as an attractive perk companies can offer. With so many dual-career employees. studies have shown that great ideas are born through in- earners, the flexibility to work from home on some days can go a long terdependence, not independence. It\u2019s during those informal interac- way toward achieving a better balance between work and family. That tions around the water cooler or during coffee breaks that some of the translates into better recruiting and better retention. In other words, most creative ideas arise. If you take that away, you stifle the organiza- you\u2019ll get and keep better employees if you offer the ability to work tion\u2019s creative potential. from home. Trust is another problem. ever trust someone you haven\u2019t met? I Plus, studies have shown that productivity is higher, not lower, when didn\u2019t think so. Again, face-to-face interactions allow people to estab- people work from home. This result is not limited to the United states. lish trusting relationships more quickly, which fosters smoother social For example, one study found that Chinese call center employees interactions and allows the company to perform better. who worked from home outproduced their \u201cface-time\u201d counterparts by 13\u00a0percent. But enough about employers. employees also benefit when they are in the office. If you\u2019re out of sight, you\u2019re out of mind. Want that big you say all these earth-shattering ideas would pour forth if people raise or promotion? you\u2019re not going to get it if your supervisor doesn\u2019t interacted. I say consider that one of the biggest workplace distrac- even know who you are. tions is chatty coworkers. so, although I concede there are times when \u201cface-time\u201d is beneficial, the benefits of telecommuting far outweigh so think twice the next time you either want to leave the office the drawbacks. early or not bother coming in at all, to \u201cwork from home.\u201d Sources: J. surowiecki, \u201cFace Time,\u201d The New Yorker, march 18, 2013, www.newyorker.com; and l. Taskin and F. Bridoux, \u201cTelework: A Challenge to Knowledge Transfer in organizations,\u201d International Journal of Human Resource Management 21, no. 13 (2010): 2503\u201320.","306 PART 2 The Individual cHaPter revieW MyManagementLab Go to mymanagementlab.com to complete the problems marked with this icon. QuestiOns FOr revieW 8-5 How can the different types of variable-pay 8-1 How does the job characteristics model motivate programs increase employee motivation? individuals? 8-6 How can flexible benefits motivate employees? 8-7 What are the motivational benefits of intrinsic 8-2 What are the major ways that jobs can be rewards? redesigned? 8-3 What are the motivational benefits of the specific alternative work arrangements? 8-4 How can employee involvement measures motivate employees? exPerientiaL exercise Occupations and the Job Characteristics Model Break the class into groups of three to five. 8-9. Next, write down jobs that have low levels of each characteristic (and if you can think of jobs that 8-8. As a group, consider each of the five job char- have low levels of multiple characteristics, note acteristics (skill variety, task identity, task signifi- those as well.) Do you think the jobs you identified cance, autonomy, and feedback). Then, write are high or low paying? Why? down jobs that have high levels of each character- istic (if you can think of jobs that have high levels 8-10. For those jobs you identified as having low levels of of multiple characteristics, note those as well). Do job characteristics, come up with some strategies you think the jobs you identified are high or low to increase them. Be specific in your recommenda- paying? Why? tions. Discuss these with the class. etHicaL DiLeMMa Inmates for Hire are competitive. Steven Eisen, CFO of Tennier Industries, came face-to-face with FPI when his company lost a $45 mil- We\u2019ve all heard about how companies are using overseas lion contract to manufacture clothing for the U.S. Defense workers to reduce labor costs, but the real cost savings for Department. One hundred of Tennier\u2019s workers were laid some jobs may lie with prison workers. Federal Prison Indus- off as a result. He argues it is wrong to give jobs to prison tries (FPI, also called UNICOR) is a company owned by the inmates at the expense of law-abiding citizens who may be government that employs prison inmates. Like some over- struggling to find employment. \u201cOur government screams, seas sweatshop workers, prisoners are paid exceptionally howls, and yells how the rest of the world is using prisoners or low rates of 23 cents to $1.15 an hour, receive no benefits slave labor to manufacture items, and here we take the items for their work, and do not work in a participative manage- right out of the mouths of people who need it,\u201d says Eisen. ment environment. The motivation for them to work hard is instead completely intrinsic: to learn trade skills and the Proponents of the program say it is beneficial to in- value of work while they are incarcerated, in hopes that mates, pointing to data from the Bureau of Prisons they will be more employable upon their release. showing that inmates who work for FPI are 24 percent less likely to be incarcerated again and 14 percent more Although the organization is unable to supply workers likely to be employed when released. Traci Billingsley, to the private sector, federal agencies are required to pur- chase goods produced by its workers whenever FPI\u2019s bids","Motivation: From\u00a0Concepts to Applications CHAPTER 8 307 speaking for the Bureau of Prisons, states, \u201cFPI supplies 8-12. Michigan representative Bill Huizenga said, \u201cIf only a small fraction of the government\u2019s goods and ser- China did this\u2014having their prisoners work at vices. FPI also helps support American jobs as it often subpar wages in prisons\u2014we would be screaming partners with private American companies as a supplier.\u201d bloody murder.\u201d Do you agree or disagree with his statement? Why? Questions 8-11. Do you think it is fair for companies to have to 8-13. Do you think prisoner employees should compete against prison inmates for government have\u00a0any benefits other workers have? Why or work? Why or why not? why not? Sources: Based on D. Cardwell, \u201cCompeting with Prison Labor,\u201d The New York Times, March 15, 2012,\u00a01, 4. case inciDent 1 Motivation for Leisure \u201cWhen I have time I don\u2019t have money. When I have money The challenge of taking leisure time does not seem I don\u2019t have time,\u201d says Glenn Kelman, Redfin CEO. He\u2019s to be a problem for many European countries. Take the not alone. While many workers find themselves faced with French, who get 30 days of vacation and say they take all of 60-, 70-, or 80-hour weeks (and sometimes more), others them. In fact, if you work in the European Union and get who are unemployed can find themselves with too much sick on vacation, the European Court of Justice says you time on their hands. Take Dennis Lee, a sales associate are entitled to take a make-up vacation. working in Chicago whose girlfriend is unemployed. She has time to spare, but he says her unemployment makes Questions it \u201cfinancially impossible for me to support the both of us, 8-14. What is the average number of vacation days per even if we just go on a small trip, like, to Wisconsin and get year in your country? Should companies allow a small hotel and stay for a couple of days.\u201d their employees to trade vacation days for cash? Justify your answer Those who are employed and who may have the 8-15. Why do you think U.S. workers often do not take financial means to take a vacation often leave those all their allotted vacation time, even if they may vacation days on the table. The average U.S. worker gets lose the benefit? Are these personal choices, or are 2.6\u00a0weeks of vacation a year, yet only 43 percent take that they driven by society, or by organizational culture? time. Although the reasons U.S. employees may not be 8-16. If many unemployed are spending around motivated to take their vacation time vary from a sense of 2\u00a0hours\/day looking for work as some research job insecurity to heavy employer workload demands, some indicates, how would you evaluate the impact of companies now let employees trade vacation days for cash, unemployment on work motivation? How would essentially motivating them to sell the vacation hours they you spend your days if unemployed? do not intend to use. Sources: P. Coy, \u201cThe Leisure Gap,\u201d Bloomberg Businessweek ( July 23\u201329, 2012): 8\u201310; A. B. Krueger and A. I. Mueller, \u201cTime Use, Emotional Well-Being, and Unemployment: Evidence from Longitu- dinal Data,\u201d American Economic Review (May 2012): 594\u201399; and L. Kwoh, \u201cMore Firms Offer Option to Swap Cash for Time,\u201d The Wall Street Journal, September 26, 2012, B6. case inciDent 2 Pay Raises Every Day about 5 percent of organizations give raises more than annually, but some larger employers like discount web- How do you feel when you get a raise? Happy? Rewarded? site retailer Zulily, Inc., assess pay quarterly. Zulily CEO Motivated to work harder for that next raise? The hope Darrell Cavens would like to do so even more frequently. of an increase in pay, followed by a raise, can increase \u201cIf it wasn\u2019t a big burden, you\u2019d almost want to work on it employee motivation. However, the effect may not last. In on a weekly basis,\u201d he said. That\u2019s because raises increase fact, the \u201cwarm fuzzies\u201d from a raise last less than a month, employee focus, happiness, engagement, and retention. according to a recent study. If raises are distributed annu- ally, performance motivation can dip for many months in CEO Jeffrey Housenbold of online photo publisher between evaluations. Shutterfly, Inc., also advocates frequent pay assessments, but for a different reason. The company gives bonuses Some organizations have tried to keep the motivation going by increasing the frequency of raises. Currently, only","308 PART 2 The Individual four times a year to supplement its biannual raise structure maintaining pay equity adds another level of difficulty. as part of a review of employee concerns. \u201cYou can resolve Frequent pay reviews are motivating, but only for the problems early versus letting them fester,\u201d he said. An- people receiving them\u2014for the others, it\u2019s a struggle to other reason is to increase feedback. Phone app designer stay engaged. If a person has a track record of raises and Solstice Mobile gives promotions and salary increases six then pay levels off, it can feel like a loss of identity as a times a year; with this structure, Kelly O\u2019Reagan climbed strong performer rather than a natural consequence of from $10\/hour to $47.50\/hour in 4 years. The company\u2019s achieving a higher level of pay. The frustration can lead CEO, John Schwan, said that young workers are especially to lower performance and increased turnover for high motivated by the near-constant feedback. O\u2019Reagan said, performers. CEO Schwan acknowledged, \u201cIt\u2019s definitely \u201cSeeing that increase was like, \u2018Wow, this is quite different a risk.\u201d than what I had ever dreamed of.\u2019\u201d Questions You might be wondering how organizations can keep 8-17. How can HR administer a complex pay structure the dollar increases to employees flowing. Organizations that rewards pay increases on a regular basis? are wondering, too. One tactic is to start employees at a 8-18. Why are younger employees more likely to be low pay rate. Ensilon, a marketing services company, has motivated by very regular pay increases than older coupled low starting salaries with twice-yearly salary re- workers? views. Initial job candidates are skeptical, but most of the 8-19. In some countries a national minimum wage or new hires earn at least 20 percent more after 2 years than a \u201cliving wage\u201d has been set by the government. they would with a typical annual raise structure. What are the drawbacks of such an approach to dealing with low pay? No one is saying frequent pay raises are cheap, or easy to administrate. Pay itself is a complex issue, and Sources: R. Feintzeig, \u201cWhen the Annual Raise Isn\u2019t Enough,\u201d The Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2014, B1, B5; J. C. Marr and S. Thau, \u201cFalling from Great (and Not-So-Great) Heights: How Initial Status Position Influences Performance after Status Loss,\u201d Academy of Management Journal 57, no. 1 (2014): 223\u201348; and \u201cPay Equity & Discrimination,\u201d IWPR, http:\/\/www.iwpr.org\/initiatives\/pay-equity-and- discrimination. MyManagementLab Go to mymanagementlab.com for the following Assisted-graded writing questions: 8-20. In regard to Case Incident 1, what cultural differences in collectivism\/individualism might help predict motivation for the amount of vacation employees want to accrue and will take annually? 8-21. How would you design a bonus\/reward program to avoid the problems mentioned in Case Incident 2? 8-22. MyManagementLab Only \u2013 comprehensive writing assignment for this chapter. enDnOtes Extension of the Work Design Literature,\u201d 5C. B. Gibson, J. L. Gibbs, T. L. Stanko, Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 5 (2007): P. Tesluk, and S. G. Cohen, \u201cIncluding the \u2018I\u2019 in 1C. B. Gibson, J. L. Gibbs, T. L. Stanko, 1332\u201356. Virtuality and Modern Job Design: Extending P. Tesluk, and S. G. Cohen, \u201cIncluding the 3B. M. Meglino and A. M. Korsgaard, \u201cThe the Job Characteristics Model to Include the \u2018I\u2019 in Virtuality and Modern Job Design: Role of Other Orientation in Reactions to Job Moderating Effect of Individual Experiences of Extending the Job Characteristics Model to Characteristics,\u201d Journal of Management 33, Electronic Dependence and Copresence.\u201d Include the Moderating Effect of Individual no.\u00a01 (2007): 57\u201383. 6B. M. Naba and L. Fan, \u201cEmployee Motiva- Experiences of Electronic Dependence and 4J. L. Pierce, I. Jussila, and A. Cummings, tion and Satisfaction in Niger: An Application Copresence,\u201d Organization Science 22, no. 6 \u201cPsychological Ownership within the of the Job Characteristics Model.\u201d In A. de (2011): 1481\u201399. Job Design Context: Revision of the Job Hoyos, K. Kaminishi, and G. Duysters (eds.), 2S. E. Humphrey, J. D. Nahrgang, and Characteristics Model,\u201d Journal of Organiza- Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on F. P.\u00a0Morgeson, \u201cIntegrating Motivational, tional Behavior 30, no. 4 (2009): 477\u201396. Innovation and Management (2013): 523\u201327. Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and Theoretical","Motivation: From\u00a0Concepts to Applications CHAPTER 8 309 7M. F. Peterson and S. A. Ruiz-Quintanilla, 18K. Pajo and L. Lee, \u201cCorporate-Sponsored May 2, 2014, http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/ \u201cCultural Socialization as a Source of Intrinsic Volunteering: A Work Design Perspective,\u201d susanadams\/2014\/05\/02\/workers-have-more- Work Motivation,\u201d Group & Organization Man- Journal of Business Ethics 99, no. 3 (2011): flextime-less-real-flexibility-study-shows\/. agement 28, no. 2 (2003): 188\u2013216. 467\u201382. 31C. B. Mulligan, \u201cWhat Job Sharing Brings,\u201d 8T. Silver, \u201cRotate Your Way to Higher Value,\u201d 19K. Bal, \u201cDoes Flextime Penalize Night Forbes, May 8, 2013, http:\/\/economix.blogs Baseline (March\/April 2010): 12; and Owls?\u201d Human Resource Executive, June 23, .nytimes.com\/2013\/05\/08\/what-job-sharing- J. J. Salopek, \u201cCoca-Cola Division Refreshes 2014, http:\/\/www.hreonline.com\/HRE\/view\/ brings\/; and \u201cThe Employer Mandate\/ Its Talent with Diversity Push on Campus,\u201d story.jhtml?id=534357257. Employer Penalty Delayed until 2015\/2016,\u201d Workforce Management Online, March 2011, 20T. Kato, \u201cWork and Family Practices in Japa- http:\/\/obamacarefacts.com\/obamacare- www.workforce.com. nese Firms: Their Scope, Nature, and Impact employer-mandate\/. 9Skytrax website review of Singapore Airlines, on Employee Turnover,\u201d International Journal of 32L. Woellert, \u201cU.S. Work Share Program www.airlinequality.com\/Airlines\/SQ.htm, Human Resource Management 20, no. 2 (2009): Helps Employers Avoid Layoffs,\u201d Bloom- accessed May 31, 2013. 439\u201356; and P. Mourdoukoutas, \u201cWhy Do berg\u00a0Businessweek, January 24, 2013, www 10S.-Y. Chen, W.-C. Wu, C.-S. Chang, and Women Fare Better in the German World of .businessweek.com\/articles\/2013-01-24\/ C.-T. Lin, \u201cJob Rotation and Internal Work Than in the US?\u201d Forbes, March 25, 2013, u-dot-s-dot-work-share-program-helps- Marketing for Increased Job Satisfaction and www.forbes.com\/sites\/panosmourdoukoutas\/ employers-avoid-layoffs. Organisational Commitment in Hospital 2013\/03\/25\/why-do-women-fare-better-in-the- 33P. R. Gregory, \u201cWhy Obama Cannot Match Nursing Staff,\u201d Journal of Nursing Management german-world-of-work-than-in-the-us\/. Germany\u2019s Jobs Miracle,\u201d Forbes, May 5, 2013, 23, no. 3 (2015): 297\u2013306. 21R. Waring, \u201cSunday Dialogue: Flexible Work www.forbes.com\/sites\/paulroderickgregory\/ 11A. Christini and D. Pozzoli, \u201cWorkplace Hours,\u201d The New York Times, January 19, 2013, 2013\/05\/05\/why-obama-cannot-match- Practices and Firm Performance in Manu- www.nytimes.com. germanys-jobs-miracle\/. facturing: A Comparative Study of Italy and 22S. Y. He, \u201cDoes Flextime Affect Choice of 34See, for example, E. J. Hill, M. Ferris, and Britain,\u201d International Journal of Manpower 31, Departure Time for Morning Home-Based V. Martinson, \u201cDoes It Matter Where You no. 7 (2010): 818\u201342; and K. Kaymaz, \u201cThe Ef- Commuting Trips? Evidence from Two Re- Work? A Comparison of How Three Work fects of Job Rotation Practices on Motivation: gions in California,\u201d Transport Policy 25 (2013): Venues (Traditional Office, Virtual Office, and A Research on Managers in the Automotive 210\u201321. Home Office) Influence Aspects of Work and Organizations,\u201d Business and Economics Research 23S. Westcott, \u201cBeyond Flextime: Trashing the Personal\/Family Life,\u201d Journal of Vocational Be- Journal 1, no. 3 (2010): 69\u201386. Workweek,\u201d Inc. (August 2008): 30. havior 63, no. 2 (2003): 220\u201341; B. Williamson, 12S.-H. Huang and Y.-C. Pan, \u201cErgonomic 24B. Y. Lee and S. E. DeVoe, \u201cFlextime and \u201cManaging Virtual Workers,\u201d Bloomberg Busi- Job Rotation Strategy Based on an Automated Profitability,\u201d Industrial Relations 51, no. 2 nessweek, July 16, 2009, www.businessweek.com; RGB-D Anthropometric Measuring System,\u201d (2012): 298\u2013316. and B. A. Lautsch and E. E. Kossek, \u201cManag- Journal of Manufacturing Systems 33, no. 4 25See, for example, K. M. Shockley, and ing a Blended Workforce: Telecommuters and (2014): 699\u2013710; and P. C. Leider, T. D. Allen, \u201cWhen Flexibility Helps: Another Non-Telecommuters,\u201d Organizational Dynamics J. S. Boschman, M. H. W. Frings-Dresen, et al., Look at the Availability of Flexible Work 40, no. 1 (2010): 10\u201317. \u201cEffects of Job Rotation on Musculoskeletal Arrangements and Work\u2013Family Conflict,\u201d 35B. Belton, \u201cBest Buy Copies Yahoo, Reins in Complaints and Related Work Exposures: A Journal of Vocational Behavior 71, no. 3 (2007): Telecommuting,\u201d USA Today, March 6, 2013, Systematic Literature Review,\u201d Ergonomics 58, 479\u201393; J. G. Grzywacz, D. S. Carlson, and www.usatoday.com. no. 1 (2015): 18\u201332. S. Shulkin, \u201cSchedule Flexibility and Stress: 36C. Tkaczyk, \u201cMarissa Mayer Breaks Her 13A. M. Grant, \u201cLeading with Meaning: Linking Formal Flexible Arrangements and Silence on Yahoo\u2019s Telecommuting Policy,\u201d Beneficiary Contact, Prosocial Impact, and Perceived Flexibility to Employee Health,\u201d Fortune, April 13, 2013, http:\/\/fortune the Performance Effects of Transformational Community, Work, and Family 11, no. 2 (2008): .com\/2013\/04\/19\/marissa-mayer-breaks-her- Leadership,\u201d Academy of Management Journal 199\u2013214; and L. A. McNall, A. D. Masuda, and silence-on-yahoos-telecommuting-policy\/. 55 (2012): 458\u201376; and A. M. Grant and S. K. J. M. Nicklin \u201cFlexible Work Arrangements, 37D. Wilkie, \u201cHas the Telecommuting Parker, \u201cRedesigning Work Design Theories: Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: Bubble\u00a0Burst?\u201d Society for Human The Rise of Relational and Proactive Perspec- The Mediating Role of Work-to-Family Resource\u00a0Management, June 1, 2015, tives,\u201d Annals of the Academy of Management 3, Enrichment,\u201d Journal of Psychology 144, no. 1 http:\/\/www.shrm.org\/publications\/ no. 1 (2009): 317\u201375. (2010): 61\u201381. hrmagazine\/editorialcontent\/2015\/0615\/ 14J. Devaro, \u201cA Theoretical Analysis of Rela- 26K. M. Shockley and T. D. Allen, \u201cInvesti- pages\/0615-telecommuting.aspx. tional Job Design and Compensation,\u201d Journal gating the Missing Link in Flexible Work 38B. W. Reynolds, \u201c100 Top Companies of Organizational Behavior 31 (2010): 279\u2013301. Arrangement Utilization: An Individual Differ- with Remote Jobs in 2015,\u201d Flexjobs, January 15A. M. Grant, E. M. Campbell, G. Chen, ence Perspective,\u201d Journal of Vocational Behavior 20, 2015, http:\/\/www.flexjobs.com\/blog\/ K. Cottone, D. Lapedis, and K. Lee, \u201cImpact 76, no. 1 (2010): 131\u201342. post\/100-top-companies-with-remote-jobs- and the Art of Motivation Maintenance: 27C. L. Munsch, C. L. Ridgeway, and in-2015. The Effects of Contact with Beneficiaries on J. C. Williams, \u201cPluralistic Ignorance and the 39S. Florentine, \u201c10 Most Telecommuting- Persistence Behavior,\u201d Organizational Behavior Flexibility Bias: Understanding and Mitigating Friendly Tech Companies,\u201d CIO, January 15, and Human Decision Processes 103, no. 1 (2007): Flextime and Flexplace Bias at Work,\u201d Work 2014, http:\/\/www.cio.com\/article\/2369810\/ 53\u201367. and Occupations 41, no. 1 (2014): 40\u201362. telecommuting\/136064-10-Most-Telecommuting- 16Y. N. Turner, I. Hadas-Halperin, and 28D. Eldridge and T. M. Nisar, \u201cEmployee Friendly-Tech-Companies.html#slide11. D. Raveh, \u201cPatient Photos Spur Radiologist and Organizational Impacts of Flextime Work 40See, for instance, M. Conlin, \u201cThe Easiest Empathy and Eye for Detail.\u201d Paper presented Arrangements,\u201d Industrial Relations 66, no. 2 Commute of All,\u201d BusinessWeek (December at the annual meeting of the Radiological (2011): 213\u201334. 12, 2005): 78; S. Shellenbarger, \u201cTelework Is Society of North America, November 2008. 29J. LaReau, \u201cFord\u2019s 2 Julies Share Devo- on the Rise, but It Isn\u2019t Just Done from Home 17A. M. Grant, \u201cThe Significance of Task Sig- tion\u2014and Job,\u201d Automotive News (October 25, Anymore,\u201d The Wall Street Journal, January 23, nificance: Job Performance Effects, Relational 2010): 4. 2001, B1; and E. O\u2019Keefe, \u201cTeleworking Grows Mechanisms, and Boundary Conditions,\u201d Jour- 30S. Adams, \u201cWorkers Have More Flextime, but Still a Rarity,\u201d The Washington Post, nal of Applied Psychology no. 93 (2008): 108\u201324. Less Real Flexibility, Study Shows,\u201d Forbes, February 22, 2011, B3.","310 PART 2 The Individual 41S. Raghuram and D. Fang, \u201cTelecommuting \u201cTaking Empowerment to the Next Level: Approach,\u201d Industrial and Labor Relations and the Role of Supervisory Power in China,\u201d A Multiple-Level Model of Empowerment, Review 64, no. 1 (2010): 3\u201329. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 31, no. 2 Performance, and Satisfaction,\u201d Academy of 62D. K. Datta, J. P. Guthrie, and P. M. Wright, (2014): 523\u201347. Management Journal 47, no. 3 (2004): 332\u201349; \u201cHuman Resource Management and Labor 42E. E. Kossek, B. A. Lautsch, and S. C. Eaton, M. M. Butts, R. J. Vandenberg, D. M. DeJoy, Productivity: Does Industry Matter? Academy of \u201cTelecommuting, Control, and Boundary B. S. Schaffer, and M. G. Wilson, \u201cIndividual Management Journal 48, no. 1 (2005): 135\u201345; Management: Correlates of Policy Use and Reactions to High Involvement Work Pro- C. M. Riordan, R. J. Vandenberg, and H. A. Practice, Job Control, and Work-Family Effec- cesses: Investigating the Role of Empower- Richardson, \u201cEmployee Involvement Climate tiveness,\u201d Journal of Vocational Behavior 68, no. ment and Perceived Organizational Support,\u201d and Organizational Effectiveness.\u201d Human 2 (2006): 347\u201367. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 14, no. Resource Management 44, no. 4 (2005): 43J. Kotkin, \u201cMarissa Mayer\u2019s Misstep and the 2 (2009): 122\u201336; R. Park, E. Applebaum, and 471\u201388; and J. Kim, J. P. MacDuffie, and Unstoppable Rise of Telecommuting,\u201d Forbes, D. Kruse, \u201cEmployee Involvement and Group F. K. Pil, \u201cEmployee Voice and Organizational March 26, 2013. Incentives in Manufacturing Companies: A Performance: Team versus Representative 44L. Taskin and F. Bridoux, \u201cTelework: A Multi-Level Analysis,\u201d Human Resource Manage- Influence,\u201d Human Relations 63, no. 3 (2010): Challenge to Knowledge Transfer in Organiza- ment Journal 20, no. 3 (2010): 227\u201343; D. C. 371\u201394. tions,\u201d International Journal of Human Resource Jones, P. Kalmi, and A. Kauhanen, \u201cHow Does 63M. Marchington, \u201cAnalysing the Forces Management 21, no. 13 (2010): 2503\u201320. Employee Involvement Stack Up? The Effects Shaping Employee Involvement and Participa- 45S. M. B. Thatcher and J. Bagger, \u201cWorking in of Human Resource Management Policies in tion (EIP) at Organisation Level in Liberal Pajamas: Telecommuting, Unfairness Sources, a Retail Firm,\u201d Industrial Relations 49, no. 1 Market Economies (LMEs).\u201d and Unfairness Perceptions,\u201d Negotiation and (2010): 1\u201321; and M. T. Maynard, L. L. Gilson, 64E. White, \u201cOpportunity Knocks, and It Pays Conflict Management Research 4, no. 3 (2011): and J. E. Mathieu, \u201cEmpowerment\u2014Fad or a Lot Better,\u201d The Wall Street Journal, Novem- 248\u201376. Fab? A Multilevel Review of the Past Two ber 13, 2006, B3. 46E. G. Dutcher, \u201cThe Effects of Telecommut- Decades of Research,\u201d Journal of Management 65D. A. McIntyre and S. Weigley, \u201c8 companies ing on Productivity: An Experimental Exami- 38, no. 4 (2012): 1231\u201381. That Most Owe Workers a Raise,\u201d USA Today, nation. The Role of Dull and Creative Tasks,\u201d 54See, for instance, A. Sagie and Z. Aycan, May 13, 2013, www.usatoday.com\/story\/ Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 84, \u201cA Cross-Cultural Analysis of Participative money\/business\/2013\/05\/12\/8-companies- no. 1 (2014): 355\u201363. Decision-Making in Organizations,\u201d Human that-most-owe-workers-a-raise\/2144013\/. 47See, for example, P. Brotherton, \u201cFor Relations 56, no. 4 (2003): 453\u201373; and 66M. Sabramony, N. Krause, J. Norton, and Teleworkers, Less Is Definitely More,\u201d T1D 65 J. Brockner, \u201cUnpacking Country Effects: On G. N. Burns \u201cThe Relationship between (March 2011): 29; and M. Virick, N. DaSilva, the Need to Operationalize the Psychologi- Human Resource Investments and Organiza- and K. Arrington, \u201cModerators of the Curvi- cal Determinants of Cross-National Differ- tional Performance: A Firm-Level Examina- linear Relation between Extent of Telecom- ences,\u201d in R. M. Kramer and B. M. Staw (eds.), tion of Equilibrium Theory,\u201d Journal of Applied muting and Job and Life Satisfaction: The Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 25 Psychology 93, no. 4 (2008): 778\u201388. Role of Performance Outcome Orientation (Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2003), 336\u201340. 67C. Isidore, \u201cWalmart Ups Pay Well above and Worker Type,\u201d Human Relations 63, no. 1 55C. Robert, T. M. Probst, J. J. Martocchio, Minimum Wage,\u201d CNN Money, February 19, (2010): 137\u201354. R. Drasgow, and J. J. Lawler, \u201cEmpowerment 2015, http:\/\/money.cnn.com\/2015\/02\/19\/ 48M. C. Noonan and J. L. Glass, \u201cThe Hard and Continuous Improvement in the United news\/companies\/walmart-wages\/. Truth about Telecommuting,\u201d Monthly Labor States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting 68See, for example, B. Martinez, \u201cTeacher Review (2012): 1459\u201378. Fit on the Basis of the Dimensions of Power Bonuses Emerge in Newark,\u201d The Wall Street 49J. Welch and S. Welch, \u201cThe Importance of Distance and Individualism,\u201d Journal of Applied Journal, April 21, 2011, A15; K. Taylor, \u201cDif- Being There,\u201d BusinessWeek, April 16, 2007, 92; Psychology 85, no. 5 (2000): 643\u201358. fering Results When Teacher Evaluations Z. I. Barsness, K. A. Diekmann, and M. L. Se- 56Z. X. Chen and S. Aryee, \u201cDelegation and Are Tied to Test Scores,\u201d The New York Times, idel, \u201cMotivation and Opportunity: The Role Employee Work Outcomes: An Examina- March 23, 2015, A16; and D. Weber, \u201cSeminole of Remote Work, Demographic Dissimilarity, tion of the Cultural Context of Mediating Teachers to Get Bonuses Instead of Raises,\u201d and Social Network Centrality in Impression Processes in China,\u201d Academy of Management Orlando Sentinel, January 19, 2011, www Management,\u201d Academy of Management Journal Journal 50, no. 1 (2007): 226\u201338. .orlandosentinel.com. 48, no. 3 (2005): 401\u201319. 57G. Huang, X. Niu, C. Lee, and S. J. Ashford, 69See, for example, M. Damiani and A. Ricci, 50P. Zhu and S. G. Mason, \u201cThe Impact of \u201cDifferentiating Cognitive and Affective Job \u201cManagers\u2019 Education and the Choice of Dif- Telecommuting on Personal Vehicle Usage Insecurity: Antecedents and Outcomes,\u201d Jour- ferent Variable Pay Schemes: Evidence from and Environmental Sustainability,\u201d Interna- nal of Organizational Behavior 33, no. 6 (2012): Italian Firms,\u201d European Management Journal tional Journal of Environmental Science and 752\u201369. 32, no. 6 (2014): 891\u2013902; and J. S. Heywood Technology 11, no. 8 (2014): 2185\u2013200. 58Z. Cheng, \u201cThe Effects of Employee Involve- and U. Jirjahn, \u201cVariable Pay, Industrial Rela- 51S. Raghuram and D. Fang, \u201cTelecommuting ment and Participation on Subjective Wellbe- tions and Foreign Ownership: Evidence from and the Role of Supervisory Power in China.\u201d ing: Evidence from Urban China,\u201d Social Germany,\u201d British Journal of Industrial Relations 52M. Marchington, \u201cAnalysing the Forces Indicators Research 118, no. 2 (2014): 457\u201383. 52, no. 3 (2014): 521\u201352. Shaping Employee Involvement and Participa- 59M. Marchington, \u201cAnalysing the Forces 70S. Miller, \u201cVariable Pay Spending Spikes to tion (EIP) at Organisation Level in Liberal Shaping Employee Involvement and Participa- Record High,\u201d Society for Human Resource Man- Market Economies (LMEs),\u201d Human Resource tion (EIP) at Organisation Level in Liberal agement, September 2, 2014, http:\/\/www.shrm Management Journal 25, no. 1 (2015): 1\u201318. Market Economies (LMEs).\u201d .org\/hrdisciplines\/compensation\/articles\/ 53See, for example, the literature on empow- 60J. J. Caughron and M. D. Mumford, \u201cEmbed- pages\/variable-pay-high.aspx. erment, such as D. P. Ashmos, D. Duchon, ded Leadership: How Do a Leader\u2019s Superiors 71S. Miller, \u201cCompanies Worldwide Reward- R. R. McDaniel Jr., and J. W. Huonker, \u201cWhat Impact Middle-Management Performance?\u201d ing Performance with Variable Pay,\u201d Society for a Mess! Participation as a Simple Managerial Leadership Quarterly (June 2012): 342\u201353. Human Resource Management, March 1, 2010, Rule to \u2018Complexify\u2019 Organizations,\u201d Journal of 61See, for instance, A. Pendleton and A. Rob- www.shrm.org. Management Studies 39, no. 2 (2002): 189\u2013206; inson, \u201cEmployee Stock Ownership, Involve- 72S. Miller, \u201cAsian Firms Offer More Variable S. E. Seibert, S. R. Silver, and W. A. Randolph, ment, and Productivity: An Interaction-Based Pay Than Western Firms,\u201d Society for Human","Motivation: From\u00a0Concepts to Applications CHAPTER 8 311 Resource Management, March 28, 2012, www 90N. Chun and S. Lee, \u201cBonus Compen- the Edge: Earnings Manipulation and Stock- .shrm.org. sation and Productivity: Evidence from Based Incentive Misalignment,\u201d Academy of 73H. Kim, K. L. Sutton, and Y. Gong, \u201cGroup- Indian\u00a0Manufacturing Plant-Level Data,\u201d Management Journal 51, no. 2 (2008): 241\u201358. Based Pay-for-Performance Plans and Firm Journal of Productivity Analysis 43, no. 1 103C. B. Cadsby, F. Song, and F. Tapon, Performance: The Moderating Role of Em- (2015): 47\u201358. \u201cSorting and Incentive Effects of Pay for powerment Practices,\u201d Asia Pacific Journal of 91E. White, \u201cEmployers Increasingly Favor Performance: An Experimental Investiga- Management (March 2013): 31\u201352. Bonuses to Raises,\u201d The Wall Street Jour- tion,\u201d Academy of Management Journal 50, no. 2 74J. Cloutier, D. Morin, and S. Renaud, \u201cHow nal, August 28, 2006, B3; and J. S. Lublin, (2007): 387\u2013405. Does Variable Pay Relate to Pay Satisfaction \u201cBoards Tie CEO Pay More Tightly to Perfor- 104J. H. Han, K. M. Barol, and S. Kim, \u201cTight- among Canadian Workers?\u201d International Jour- mance,\u201d The Wall Street Journal, February 21, ening Up the Performance-Pay Linkage: nal of Manpower 34, no. 5 (2013): 465\u201385. 2006, A1, A14. Roles of Contingent Reward Leadership and 75E. Belogolovsky and P. A. Bamberger, \u201cSig- 92S. S. Wiltermuth and F. Gino, \u201c\u2018I\u2019ll Have Profit-Sharing in the Cross-Level Influence of naling in Secret: Pay for Performance and the One of Each\u2019: How Separating Rewards into Individual Pay-for-Performance.\u201d Incentive and Sorting Effects of Pay Secrecy,\u201d (Meaningless) Categories Increases Motiva- 105Z. Lin, J. Kellly, and L. Trenberth, \u201cAnte- Academy of Management Journal 57, no. 6 tion,\u201d Journal of Personality and Social Psychology cedents and Consequences of the Introduc- (2014): 1706\u201333. (January 2013): 1\u201313. tion of Flexible Benefit Plans in China,\u201d The 76Ibid. 93\u201cMark Zuckerberg Reaped $2.3 Billion on International Journal of Human Resource Manage- 77B. Wysocki Jr., \u201cChilling Reality Awaits Facebook Stock Options,\u201d Huffington Post, ment vol. 22, no. 5 (2011): 1128\u201345. Even the Employed,\u201d The Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2013, www.huffingtonpost.com. 106Ibid. November 5, 2001, A1; and J. C. Kovac, \u201cSour 94D. D\u2019Art and T. Turner, \u201cProfit Sharing, 107R. C. Koo, \u201cGlobal Added Value of Flexible Economy Presents Compensation Challeng- Firm Performance, and Union Influence Benefits,\u201d Benefits Quarterly 27, no. 4 (2011): es,\u201d Employee Benefit News, July 1, 2008, 18. in Selected European Countries,\u201d Personnel 17\u201320. 78K. A. Bender, C. P. Green, and J. S. Hey- Review 33, no. 3 (2004): 335\u201350; and D. Kruse, 108P. Stephens, \u201cFlex Plans Gain in Popular- wood, \u201cPiece Rates and Workplace Injury: R. Freeman, and J. Blasi, Shared Capitalism at ity,\u201d CA Magazine, January\/February 2010, 10. Does Survey Evidence Support Adam Smith?\u201d Work: Employee Ownership, Profit and Gain Shar- 109D. Lovewell, \u201cFlexible Benefits: Benefits on Journal of Population Economics 25, no. 2 ing, and Broad-Based Stock Options (Chicago: Offer,\u201d Employee Benefits, March 2010, S15. (2012): 569\u201390. University of Chicago Press, 2010). 110L. Shepherd, \u201cSpecial Report on Rewards 79J. S. Heywood, X. Wei, and G. Ye, \u201cPiece 95A. Bayo-Moriones and M. Larraza-Kintana, and Recognition: Getting Personal,\u201d Workforce Rates for Professors,\u201d Economics Letters 113, no. \u201cProfit-Sharing Plans and Affective Commit- Management, September 2010, 24\u201329. 3 (2011): 285\u201387. ment: Does the Context Matter?\u201d Human 111www.globoforce.come\/our-clients, accessed 80A. Baker and V. Mertins, \u201cRisk-Sorting and Resource Management 48, no. 2 (2009): 207\u201326. June 4, 2015. Preference for Team Piece Rates,\u201d Journal of 96N. Chi and T. Han, \u201cExploring the Linkages 112L. Shepherd, \u201cOn Recognition, Multina- Economic Psychology 34 (2013): 285\u2013300. between Formal Ownership and Psychological tionals Think Globally,\u201d Workforce Management, 81A. Clemens, \u201cPace of Work and Piece Rates,\u2019 Ownership for the Organization: The Mediat- September 2010, 26. Economics Letters 115, no. 3 (2012): 477\u201379. ing Role of Organizational Justice,\u201d Journal of 113R. J. Long and J. L. Shields, \u201cFrom Pay to 82K. A. Bender, C. P. Green, and J. S. Hey- Occupational and Organizational Psychology 81, Praise? Non-Case Employee Recognition in wood, \u201cPiece Rates and Workplace Injury: no. 4 (2008): 691\u2013711. Canadian and Australian Firms,\u201d International Does Survey Evidence Support Adam Smith?\u201d 97J. H. Han, K. M. Barol, and S. Kim, \u201cTight- Journal of Human Resource Management 21, no. 83S. L. Rynes, B. Gerhart, and L. Parks, \u201cPer- ening Up the Performance-Pay Linkage: 8 (2010): 1145\u201372. sonnel Psychology: Performance Evaluation Roles of Contingent Reward Leadership and 114S. E. Markham, K. D. Scott, and and Pay for Performance,\u201d Annual Review of Profit-Sharing in the Cross-Level Influence G. H. McKee, \u201cRecognizing Good Attendance: Psychology 56, no. 1 (2005): 571\u2013600. of Individual Pay-for-Performance,\u201d Journal A Longitudinal, Quasi-Experimental Field 84K. Zernike, \u201cNewark Teachers Approve a of\u00a0Applied Psychology 100, no. 2 (2015): Study,\u201d Personnel Psychology 55, no. 3 (2002): Contract with Merit Pay,\u201d The New York Times, 417\u201330. 641; and S. J. Peterson and F. Luthans, \u201cThe November 14, 2012, www.nytimes.com\/. 98R. P. Garrett, \u201cDoes Employee Ownership Impact of Financial and Nonfinancial Incen- 85\u201cPaying Doctors for Performance,\u201d The New Increase Innovation?\u201d New England Journal of tives on Business Unit Outcomes over Time,\u201d York Times, January 27, 2013, A16. Entrepreneurship 13, no. 2, (2010): 37\u201346. Journal of Applied Psychology 91, no. 1 (2006): 86S. Halzack, \u201cCompanies Look to Bonuses 99D. McCarthy, E. Reeves, and T. Turner, 156\u201365. Instead of Salary Increases in an Uncertain \u201cCan Employee Share-Ownership Improve 115C. Xu and C. Liang, \u201cThe Mechanisms Un- Economy,\u201d Washington Post, November 6, 2012, Employee Attitudes and Behaviour?\u201d Employee derlying an Employee Recognition Program,\u201d http:\/\/articles.washingtonpost.com\/. Relations 32, no. 4 (2010): 382\u201395. in L. Hale and J. Zhang (eds.), Proceedings of 87C. M. Barnes, J. Reb, and D. Ang, \u201cMore 100A. Pendleton, \u201cShared Capitalism at the International Conference on Public Human Than Just the Mean: Moving to a Dynamic Work: Employee Ownership, Profit and Gain Resource Management and Innovation (2013): View of Performance-Based Compensation,\u201d Sharing, and Broad-Based Stock Options,\u201d 28\u201335. Journal of Applied Psychology 97, no. 3 (2012): Industrial & Labor Relations Review 64, no. 3 116A. D. Stajkovic and F. Luthans, \u201cDifferen- 711\u201318. (2011): 621\u201322. tial Effects of Incentive Motivators on Work 88E. J. Castillo, \u201cGender, Race, and the New 101A. Pendleton and A. Robinson, \u201cEmployee Performance,\u201d Academy of Management Journal (Merit-Based) Employment Relationship,\u201d Stock Ownership, Involvement, and Productiv- 4, no. 3 (2001): 587. See also F. Luthans and Industrial Relations 51, no. S1 (2012): 528\u201362. ity: An Interaction-Based Approach,\u201d Industrial A. D. Stajkovic, \u201cProvide Recognition for 89P. Furman, \u201cOuch! Top Honchos on and Labor Relations Review 64, no. 1 (2010): Performance Improvement,\u201d in E. A. Locke Wall\u00a0Street See Biggest Cuts to Bonuses,\u201d 3\u201329. (ed.), Handbook of Principles of Organizational New\u00a0York Daily News, February 18, 2013, www 102X. Zhang, K. M. Bartol, K. G. Smith, Behavior (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004), .nydailynews.com. M.\u00a0D. Pfarrer, and D. M. Khanin, \u201cCEOs on 166\u201380.","9 Foundations Source: Handout\/Reuters of\u00a0Group Behavior 312","Learning Objectives After studying this chapter, you should be able to: 9-1 Distinguish between the different types of groups. 9-5 Show how status and size differences affect group 9-2 performance. Describe the punctuated-equilibrium model of group development. 9-6 Describe how issues of cohesiveness and diversity can be integrated for group effectiveness. 9-3 Show how role requirements change in different situations. 9-7 Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making. 9-4 Demonstrate how norms exert influence on an individual\u2019s behavior. MyManagement If your professor has chosen to assign this, go to the Assignments section of mymanagementlab.com to complete the chapter warm up. Crushed by the herd Answer quickly: If you were an employee of this car\u2019s manufacturer and could have prevented the accident that killed two people and injured a third, would you? No doubt you answered \u201cyes\u201d automatically, but if we took a few minutes to think about it, we might have to honestly answer \u201cmaybe.\u201d When we are members of groups as power- ful as those in General Motors (GM), it can be very difficult to predict our behavior. Our perceptions of right and wrong can become skewed, making even straightforward ethical decisions like this one confusing. Courtland Kelley of GM (which made the Chevrolet Cobalt in the photo) learned firsthand the pressures groups can exert on an individual. As the leader of GM\u2019s U.S. safety inspection program, he expected his workgroups to act upon the seri- ous safety flaws he found in the vehicle. Instead, \u201cGroup after group and committee after committee within GM that reviewed the issue failed to take action or acted too slowly,\u201d a later report noted. Kelley\u2019s colleague, auditor William McAleer, agreed that man- agement refused to acknowledge safety issues with vehicles. \u201cAny time you had a problem, you ran into resistance,\u201d he said. \u201cNobody owns [the] defect. And the plant can say, \u2018It was working when it left here.\u2019 And the supplier can say, \u2018My part was good.\u2019 It relieves everybody of responsibility.\u201d","314 PART 3 The Group When Kelley pushed harder to have the Cobalt\u2019s faulty ignition switch addressed, management actively discouraged his efforts. The group or- dered him to stay quiet about defects and rename them as mere conve- nience issues. At one point, his direct supervisor forbade him to share data on serious defects with McAleer and threatened to transfer him to a lesser position on the outskirts of town, while the management group tried to stifle the information. Kelley said, \u201cI heard them have many discus- sions about not wanting to notify the government, not putting voice mails out to dealers, because the government could get them\u201d and learn of the defects. When Kelley couldn\u2019t be silenced, the group pressured him into toning down the wording in his reports and shuffled him into less responsible jobs. McAleer, who suffered similar circumstances until he was laid off in 2004, observed, \u201cThe system acts as if raising a safety issue internally were an act of corporate treason.\u201d Kelley landed off the organization chart in a \u201cspe- cial assignment job,\u201d where he was told to \u201ccome up with charts, predict warranty for the vehicle, but not find every problem that GM might have.\u201d McAleer said of Kelley, \u201cHe still has a job\u2014he doesn\u2019t have a career. He has no possibility of promotion.\u201d Kelley was not fired likely only because he brought lawsuits against GM. On the positive side, Kelley\u2019s efforts have doubtlessly saved lives. After 13 deaths and 54 crashes, 2,084,000 Cobalts were recalled, as were almost 70,000 other vehicles with defects he found. From this standpoint, the battle he fought and his years in a \u201cGM purgatory\u201d job have been worth it. \u201cI felt morally responsible to fix a problem that I found in a vehicle,\u201d he said of his work on the Chevy Trailblazer. However, his heroic efforts have cost him many court battles, and he has developed chest pains, panic at- tacks, depression, and insomnia. \u201cI clearly saw him age drastically,\u201d his doc- tor, Van Alstine, said. \u201cYou just knew he was under a tremendous amount of stress. . . . It shook him to the core.\u201d Sources: G. Gutierrez and R. Gardella, \u201c\u2018Willful Ignorance\u2019 Ex-Auditor Blasts GM for Cutting Safety Program,\u201d NBC News, July 9, 2014, http:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/storyline\/gm-recall\/ willful-ignorance-ex-auditor-blasts-gm-cutting-safety-program-n152311; T. Higgins and N. Summers, \u201cIf Only They Had Listened,\u201d Bloomberg Businessweek, June 2014, 48\u201353; and S. McEachern, \u201cGeneral Motors \u2018Whistleblower\u2019 Was Told to Back Off after Finding Safety Flaws,\u201d GM Authority, June 19, 2014, http:\/\/gmauthority.com\/blog\/2014\/06\/general- motors-whistleblower-was-told-to-back-off-after-finding-safety-flaws\/. T he story of Courtland Kelley\u2019s attempts to counter the effects of group pressure provides us with a powerful example of the ways groups can (mis)behave. Even though Kelley resisted for all the right ethical reasons, sometimes countering group pressure can mean costly consequences for the individual, as he found.","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 315 Groups have their place\u2014and their pitfalls. Some groups can exert a powerful positive influence, and others can be tragically negative. The objec- tives of this chapter and Chapter 10 are to familiarize you with group and team concepts, provide you with a foundation for understanding how groups and teams work, and show you how to create effective working units. Let\u2019s begin by defining a group. 9-1 Distinguish between the Defining and Classifying Groups different types of groups. group Two or more individuals, interacting In organizational behavior, a group is two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have come together to achieve particular objectives. and interdependent, who have come together Groups can be either formal or informal. A formal group is defined by the orga- to achieve particular objectives. nization\u2019s structure, with designated work assignments and established tasks. In formal group A designated workgroup formal groups, the behaviors team members should engage in are stipulated by defined by an organization\u2019s structure. and directed toward organizational goals. The six members of an airline flight informal group A group that is neither crew are a formal group, for example. In contrast, an informal group is neither formally structured nor organizationally formally structured nor organizationally determined. Informal groups in the determined; such a group appears in work environment meet the need for social contact. Three employees from dif- response to the need for social contact. ferent departments who regularly have lunch or coffee together are an informal group. These types of interactions among individuals, though informal, deeply social identity theory Perspective that affect their behavior and performance. considers when and why individuals consider themselves members of groups. social Identity People often feel strongly about their groups partly because, as research indi- cates, shared experiences amplify our perception of events.1 Also, according to research in Australia, sharing painful experiences, in particular, increases our felt bond and trust with others.2 Why do people form groups, and why do they feel so strongly about them? Consider the celebrations that follow when a sports team wins a national championship. The winner\u2019s supporters are elated, and sales of team-related shirts, jackets, and hats skyrocket. Fans of the losing team feel dejected, even embarrassed. Why? Even though fans have little to do with the actual performance of the sports team, their self-image can be wrapped up in their identification with the group. Our tendency to personally invest in the accomplishments of a group is the territory of social identity theory. Jeffrey Webster, director of human resources at a Nissan plant in Mississippi, also serves as the director of the plant\u2019s gospel choir. Choir members are a diverse group of employees who identify with each other as they all share a love of singing and performing for fellow workers, company executives, state officials, and community events. Source: Rogelio V. Solis\/AP Images","316 PART 3 The Group Social identity theory proposes that people have emotional reactions to the failure or success of their group because their self-esteem gets tied to what- ever happens to the group.3 When your group does well, you bask in reflected glory, and your own self-esteem rises. When your group does poorly, you might feel bad about yourself, or you might reject that part of your identity like \u201cfair- weather fans.\u201d Furthermore, if your group is devalued and disrespected, your social identity might feel threatened, and you might endorse deviant behaviors to \u201cget even\u201d and restore your group\u2019s standing.4 Social identities can even lead people to experience pleasure as a result of seeing another group suffer. We often see these feelings of schadenfreude in the joy fans experience when a hated team loses.5 People develop many identities through the course of their lives. You might define yourself in terms of the organization you work for, the city you live in, your profession, your religious background, your ethnicity, and\/or your gender. Over time, some groups you belong to may become more significant to you than others. A U.S. expatriate working in Rome might be very aware of being from the United States, for instance, but doesn\u2019t give national identity a second thought when transferring from Tulsa to Tucson.6 We may thus pick and choose which of our social identities are salient to the situation, or we may find that our social identities are in conflict, such as the identities of business leader and parent.7 Our social identities help us understand who we are and where we fit in with other people, and research indicates they bring us better health and lower levels of depression because we become less likely to attribute negative situations to internal or insurmountable reasons.8 However, to experience these good out- comes, we need to feel our social identities are positive.9 Until now, we\u2019ve discussed social identities primarily in a cultural context. However, the identity we may feel with respect to our organization is only one aspect of our work-related identities (see OB Poll). Within our organizations and workgroups, we can develop many identities through: (1) relational iden- tification, when we connect with others because of our roles, and (2) collective identification, when we connect with the aggregate characteristics of our groups. Ob POLL Most People report Drinking with coworkers is acceptable At a meal during a job interview Never At a meal with coworkers 4% 14% At a holiday party 22% 70% At the celebration of 28% a company milestone 32% 40% At a retirement party At a meal with a client or customer Note: Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) survey of 501 individuals and how drinking is viewed in their organization at a range of work- related activities. Source: Based on S. M. Heathfield, \u201cTo Drink or Not to Drink: Does Alcohol Drinking Mix Safely with Work Events?\u201d About.com Guide, 2013, http:\/\/ humanresources.about.com\/od\/networking\/qt\/drink_i3.htm.","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 317 ingroup favoritism Perspective in which Often, our identification with our workgroups is stronger than with our organi- we see members of our ingroup as better than zations, but both are important to positive outcomes in attitudes and behaviors. other people, and people not in our group as Additionally, if we have low identification in relation to the group, there may all the same. be increased among by group members. If we have low identification with our organizations, we may experience decreased satisfaction and engage in fewer outgroup The inverse of an ingroup, which organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs).10 can mean everyone outside the group, but more usually an identified other group. Ingroups and Outgroups Ingroup favoritism occurs when we see members of our group as better than other people, and people not in our group as all the same. Recent research suggests that people with low openness and\/or low agreeableness are more sus- ceptible to ingroup favoritism.11 Whenever there is an ingroup, there is by necessity an outgroup, which is sometimes everyone else, but is usually an identified group known by the ingroup\u2019s members. For example, if my ingroup is the Republican party in U.S. politics, my outgroup might be anyone in the world who is not a Republican, but it\u2019s more likely to be the other U.S. political parties, or perhaps just Democrats. When there are ingroups and outgroups, there is often animosity between them. One of the most powerful sources of ingroup\u2013outgroup feelings is the practice of religion, even in the workplace. One global study, for instance, found that when groups became heavily steeped in religious rituals and discussions, they became especially discriminatory toward outgroups and aggressive if the outgroups had more resources.12 Consider an example from another study of a U.K. Muslim organization that supported Al-Qaeda and identified moderate U.K. Muslims as its outgroup. The Al-Qaeda ingroup was not neutral toward the moderate outgroup; instead, the ingroup denounced the moderates, denigrat- ing them as deviant and threatening outward aggression.13 social Identity threat Ingroups and outgroups pave the way for social identity threat, which is akin to stereotype threat (see Chapter 6). With social identity threat, individuals believe they will be personally negatively evaluated due to their association with a deval- ued group, and they may lose confidence and performance effectiveness. One study found, for example, that when subjects from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds took a high-pressure math test, the low-status subjects who felt social identity threat could be as confident as the high-status subjects only when they were first deliberately encouraged about their abilities.14 Stages of Group Development Watch It! If your professor has assigned this, go to the Assignments section of mymanagementlab.com to complete the video exercise titled Witness.org: Managing Groups & Teams. 9-2 Describe the punctuated- Temporary groups with finite deadlines pass through a unique sequencing of equilibrium model of group actions (or inaction): (1) Their first meeting sets the group\u2019s direction, (2) the development. first phase of group activity is one of inertia and thus slower progress, (3) a transition takes place exactly when the group has used up half its allotted time, (4) this transition initiates major changes, (5) a second phase of inertia follows the transition, and (6) the group\u2019s last meeting is characterized by markedly","318 PART 3 The Group Exhibit 9-1 the Punctuated-equilibrium Model (High) Performance First Phase 2 Completion Meeting Transition Phase 1 (Low) A (A+B)\/2 B Time punctuated-equilibrium model A set accelerated activity.15 This pattern, called the punctuated-equilibrium model, is of phases that temporary groups go through shown in Exhibit 9-1. that involves transitions between inertia and activity. Let\u2019s discuss each stage of the model. At the first meeting, the group\u2019s gen- eral purpose and direction is established, and then a framework of behavioral 9-3 Show how role patterns and assumptions through which the group will approach its project requirements change in emerges, sometimes in the first few seconds of the group\u2019s existence. Once set, different situations. the group\u2019s direction is solidified and is unlikely to be reexamined throughout the first half of its life. This is a period of inertia\u2014the group tends to stand still or become locked into a fixed course of action even if it gains new insights that challenge initial patterns and assumptions. One of the most interesting discoveries in studies was that groups experi- enced a transition precisely halfway between the first meeting and the official deadline\u2014whether members spent an hour on their project or 6 months. The midpoint appears to work like an alarm clock, heightening members\u2019 aware- ness that their time is limited and they need to get moving. This transition ends phase 1 and is characterized by a concentrated burst of changes, dropping of old patterns, and adoption of new perspectives. The transition sets a revised direction for phase 2, a new equilibrium or period of inertia in which the group executes plans created during the transition period. The group\u2019s last meeting is characterized by a final burst of activity to finish its work. In summary, the punctuated-equilibrium model characterizes groups as exhibiting long periods of inertia interspersed with brief revolutionary changes triggered primarily by members\u2019 awareness of time and deadlines. This is not the only model of group stages by far, but it is a dominant theory with strong support. Keep in mind, however, that this model doesn\u2019t apply to all groups but is suited to the finite quality of temporary task groups working under a time deadline.16 Group Property 1: Roles Workgroups shape members\u2019 behavior, and they also help explain individual behavior as well as the performance of the group itself. Some defining group properties are roles, norms, status, size, cohesiveness, and diversity. We\u2019ll discuss each in the sections that follow. Let\u2019s begin with the first group property, roles. Shakespeare said, \u201cAll the world\u2019s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.\u201d Using the same metaphor, all group members are actors, each playing","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 319 role A set of expected behavior patterns a role, a set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a attributed to someone occupying a given given position in a social unit. We are required to play a number of diverse roles, position in a social unit. both on and off our jobs. As we\u2019ll see, one of the tasks in understanding behav- ior is grasping the role a person is currently playing. role perception An individual\u2019s view of how he or she is supposed to act in a given Bill is a plant manager with EMM Industries, a large electrical equipment situation. manufacturer in Phoenix. He fulfills a number of roles\u2014employee, member of middle management, and electrical engineer. Off the job, Bill holds more role expectations How others believe roles: husband, father, Catholic, tennis player, member of the Thunderbird a person should act in a given situation. Country Club, and president of his homeowners\u2019 association. Many of these psychological contract An unwritten roles are compatible; some create conflicts. How does Bill\u2019s religious commit- agreement that sets out what management ment influence his managerial decisions regarding layoffs, expense padding, expects from an employee and vice versa. and provision of accurate information to government agencies? A recent offer of promotion requires Bill to relocate, yet his family wants to stay in Phoenix. Can the role demands of his job be reconciled with the demands of his husband and father roles? Different groups impose different role requirements on individuals. Like Bill, we all play a number of roles, and our behavior varies with each. But how do we know each role\u2019s requirements? We draw upon our role perceptions to frame our ideas of appropriate behaviors, and learn the expectations of our groups. role Perception Our view of how we\u2019re supposed to act in a given situation is a role perception. We get role perceptions from stimuli all around us\u2014for example, friends, books, films, and television, as when we form an impression of politicians from House of Cards. Apprenticeship programs allow beginners to watch an expert so they can learn to act as they should. role expectations Role expectations are the way others believe you should act in a given context. A U.S. federal judge is viewed as having propriety and dignity, while a football coach is seen as aggressive, dynamic, and inspiring to the players. In the workplace, we look at role expectations through the perspective of the psychological contract: an unwritten agreement that exists between employees and employers. This agreement sets out mutual expectations.17 Management Les Hatton, manager of a Recreational Equipment, Inc., store in Manhattan, pumps up employees before the store\u2019s grand opening. Part of the psychological contract between REI and its employees is the expectation that salespeople will display enthusiasm and generate excite- ment while welcoming and serving customers. Source: Matt Payton\/AP Images","320 PART 3 The Group role conflict A situation in which an is expected to treat employees justly, provide acceptable working conditions, individual is confronted by divergent role clearly communicate what is a fair day\u2019s work, and give feedback on how well expectations. an employee is doing. Employees are expected to demonstrate a good attitude, follow directions, and show loyalty to the organization. interrole conflict A situation in which the expectations of an individual\u2019s different, What happens if management is derelict in its part of the bargain? We can separate groups are in opposition. expect negative effects on employee performance and satisfaction. One study among restaurant managers found that violations of the psychological contract were related to greater intentions to quit, while another study of a variety of dif- ferent industries found psychological contracts were associated with lower levels of productivity, higher levels of theft, and greater work withdrawal.18 There is evidence that perceptions of psychological contracts vary across cultures. In France, where people are individualistic and power is more asym- metric, contracts are perceived as self-interested yet favoring the more powerful party. In Canada, where people are individualistic but power is more symmetric, contracts are perceived as self-interested yet focused on balanced reciprocity. In China, where people are collectivistic and power is more asymmetric, contracts are perceived as going beyond the work context into employees\u2019 lives. And in Norway, where people are collectivistic but power is more symmetric, contracts are perceived as more relational and based on trust.19 role Conflict When compliance with one role requirement may make it difficult to comply with another, the result is role conflict.20 At the extreme, two or more role ex- pectations may be contradictory. For example, if as a manager you were to pro- vide a performance evaluation of a person you mentored, your roles as evalua- tor and mentor may conflict. Similarly, we can experience interrole conflict21 when the expectations of our different, separate groups are in opposition. An example can be found in work\u2013family conflict, which Bill experiences when expectations placed on him as a husband and father differ from those placed on him as an executive with EMM Industries. Bill\u2019s wife and children want to remain in Phoenix, while EMM expects its employees to be responsive to the company\u2019s needs and requirements. Although it might be in Bill\u2019s financial and career interests to accept a relocation, the conflict centers on choosing between family and work role expectations. Indeed, a great deal of research demon- strates that work\u2013family conflict is one of the most significant sources of stress for most employees.22 Within organizations, most employees are simultaneously in occupations, workgroups, divisions, and demographic groups, and these identities can con- flict when the expectations of one clash with the expectations of another.23 During mergers and acquisitions, employees can be torn between their identi- ties as members of their original organization and of the new parent company.24 Multinational organizations also have been shown to lead to dual identification\u2014 with the local division and with the international organization.25 role Play and Assimilation The degree to which we comply with our role perceptions and expectations\u2014 even when we don\u2019t agree with them initially\u2014can be surprising. One of the most illuminating role and identity experiments was done a number of years ago by psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his associates.26 They created a \u201cprison\u201d in the basement of the Stanford psychology building; hired emotionally stable, physically healthy, law-abiding students who scored \u201cnormal average\u201d on personality tests; randomly assigned them the role of either \u201cguard\u201d or \u201cprisoner\u201d; and established some basic rules.","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 321 It took little time for the \u201cprisoners\u201d to accept the authority positions of the \u201cguards\u201d and for the mock guards to adjust to their new authority roles. Consistent with social identity theory, the guards came to see the prisoners as a negative outgroup, and they developed stereotypes about the \u201ctypical\u201d prisoner personality type. After the guards crushed a rebellion attempt on the second day, the prisoners became increasingly passive. Whatever the guards \u201cdished out,\u201d the prisoners took. The prisoners actually began to believe and act like they were inferior and powerless. Every guard, at some time during the simula- tion, engaged in abusive, authoritative behavior. One said, \u201cI was surprised at myself. . . . I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle, and I kept thinking: \u2018I have to watch out for them in case they try something.\u2019\u201d Surprisingly, during the entire experiment\u2014even after days of abuse\u2014not one prisoner said, \u201cStop this. I\u2019m a student like you. This is just an experiment!\u201d The researchers had to end the study after only 6 days because of the participants\u2019 pathological reactions. What can we conclude from this study? Like the rest of us, the participants had learned stereotyped conceptions of guard and prisoner roles from the mass media and their own personal experiences in power and powerless relationships gained at home (parent\u2013child), in school (teacher\u2013student), and in other situ- ations. This background allowed them easily and rapidly to assume roles and, with a vague notion of the social identity of their roles and no prior personality pathology or training for the parts they were playing, to execute extreme forms of behavior consistent with those roles. gossip and exclusion are toxic for groups Myth or science? This is not necessarily true. But it\u2019s according to research, Alex is likely to opportunity to gossip about the work of certainly counterintuitive, so let\u2019s cooperate with the group in response another subject, that subject cooperat- explore the conditions. to the gossip, and others hearing and ed more than before; when the opportu- What is gossip? Most of us might say spreading the gossip are likely also to nity to gossip was paired with the ability gossip is talking about others, sharing cooperate by not acting on their impuls- to ostracize, that subject cooperated to rumors, and speculating about others\u2019 es toward bad behavior. a much greater degree. behaviors; gossip affects a person\u2019s reputation. We might also say gossip is What about excluding Alex? There Thus, gossip and exclusion may malicious, but according to researchers, are two types of exclusion in the work- provide groups with benefits, at least it can serve positive social functions, place: leaving someone out of a group, when the gossip is confined to truthful too. Prosocial gossip can expose behav- and ostracizing an individual. Both lead work-related discussion, when the op- ior that exploits other people, which can to the same end\u2014the person isn\u2019t part portunity still exists to rejoin the group lead to positive changes. For example, of the group\u2014but while simply leaving with full standing, and when the group if Julie tells Chris that Alex is bullying someone out of a group might not send norms are positive. Summer, then Chris has learned about a message of exclusion, ostracism cer- Alex\u2019s poor behavior through gossiping. tainly does. Ostracism is more of a felt Sources: M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, \u201cThe Chris might refuse to partner with Alex punishment than gossip since it is more Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An on a work project, which might limit direct. Research indicates that ostra- Integrative Review,\u201d Perspectives on Psycho- Alex\u2019s opportunities with the organiza- cized individuals cooperate to a greater logical Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245\u201374; tion, preventing him from bullying more degree when they are around the group M. Feinberg, R. Willer, and M. Schultz, \u201cGos- people. Alternatively, as the gossip to show a willingness to conform, hop- sip and Ostracism Promote Cooperation in spreads, Alex might feel exposed for his ing to be invited back into the group. Groups,\u201d Psychological Science 25, no. 3 behavior and conform to group expecta- (2014): 656\u201364; and I. H. Smith, K. Aquino, tions against bullying behavior. In fact, Can gossip and ostracism work S. Koleva, and J. Graham, \u201cThe Moral Ties together? Yes, according to a recent That Bind\u2026Even to Out-Groups: The Interac- study. When subjects were given an tive Effect of Moral Identity and the Binding Moral Foundations,\u201d Psychological Science (2014): 1554\u201362.","322 PART 3 The Group A follow-up reality television show was conducted by the BBC.27 The BBC results were dramatically different from those of the Stanford experiment, partially because the show used a less intense simulated prison setting. The \u201cguards\u201d were far more careful in their behavior, limiting their aggressive treatment of \u201cprisoners\u201d and expressing concerns about how their actions might be perceived. In short, they did not fully take on their authority roles, possibly because they knew their behavior was being observed by millions of viewers. These results suggest that less intense situations evoke less extreme behavior, and abuse of roles can be limited when people are made conscious of their behavior. 9-4 Demonstrate how norms Group Property 2: Norms exert influence on an individual\u2019s behavior. Did you ever notice that golfers don\u2019t speak while their partners are putting? norms Acceptable standards of behavior Why not? The answer is norms. within a group that are shared by the group\u2019s All groups have established norms\u2014acceptable standards of behavior shared members. by members that express what they ought and ought not to do under certain circumstances. It\u2019s not enough for group leaders to share their opinions\u2014even conformity The adjustment of one\u2019s if members adopt the leaders\u2019 views, the effect may last only 3 days!28 When behavior to align with the norms of the group. agreed to by the group, norms influence behavior with a minimum of external controls. Different groups, communities, and societies have different norms, but they all have them.29 Let\u2019s discuss the levels of influence norms can exert over us, starting with our emotions. Norms and emotions Have you ever noticed how the emotions of one member of your family, especially strong emotions, can influence the emotions of the other members? A\u00a0family can be a highly normative group. So can a task group whose members work together on a daily basis, because frequent communication can increase the power of norms. A recent study found that, in a task group, individuals\u2019 emo- tions influenced the group\u2019s emotions and vice versa. This may not be surprising, but researchers also found that norms dictated the experience of emotions for the individuals and for the groups\u2014in other words, people grew to interpret their shared emotions in the same way.30 As we discovered in Chapters\u00a05 and 6, our emotions and moods can shape our perspective, so the normative effect of groups can powerfully influence group attitudes and outcomes. Norms and Conformity As a member of a group, you desire acceptance by the group. Thus, you are sus- ceptible to conforming to group norms. Considerable evidence suggests that groups can place strong pressures on individual members to change their at- titudes and behaviors to match the group\u2019s standard.31 The impact that group pressures for conformity can have on an individual member\u2019s judgment was demonstrated in studies by Solomon Asch and others.32 Asch made up groups of seven or eight people who were asked to compare two cards. One card had one line, and the other had three lines of varying length, one of which was identical to the line on the one-line card, as Exhibit 9-2 shows. The difference in line length was obvious; in fact, under ordinary conditions, subjects were incorrect less than 1 percent of the time in announcing which of the three lines matched the single line. The experiment began with sets of matching exercises. Everyone gave the right answers. On the third set, however, the first subject, who was part of the","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 323 Exhibit 9-2 examples of Cards used in Asch\u2019s study X ABC research team, gave an obviously wrong answer\u2014for example, saying \u201cC\u201d in Exhibit 9-2. The next subject, also on the research team, gave the same wrong answer, and so forth. Now the dilemma confronting the subject, who didn\u2019t know any of the subjects were on the research team, was this: publicly state a perception that differed from the announced position of the others, or give an incorrect answer that agreed with the others. The results over many experiments showed 75 percent of subjects gave at least one answer that conformed\u2014that they knew was wrong but was consis- tent with the replies of other group members\u2014and the average conformer gave wrong answers 37 percent of the time. This suggests that we feel the pressure toward conformity with group norms. Other recent research with moral decision Using Peer Pressure as an influence tactic An ethical Choice W e\u2019ve all experienced peer pres- However, peer pressure can also individuals to work toward team goals sure, and it can be hard to be destructive. It can create a feeling and behave consistently with organiza- behave differently from your of exclusion in those who do not go tional values, it can enhance ethical friends and coworkers. As more work along with group norms and can be performance. But your behavior should in organizations is performed in groups very stressful and hurtful for those who emphasize acceptance and rewarding and teams, the possibilities and pitfalls don\u2019t see eye-to-eye with the rest of the of positive behavior, rather than rejec- of such pressure have become an in- group. Peer pressure itself can be an tion and exclusion, as a means of get- creasingly important ethical issue for unethical practice that unduly influenc- ting everyone to behave consistently in managers. es workers\u2019 behavior and thoughts. And the group. while groups might pressure others into Peer pressure can be a positive good behavior, they can just as easily Sources: E. Estrada and E. Vargas-Estra- force in some ways. In groups where sway them to bad behavior. da, \u201cHow Peer Pressure Shapes Consen- high effort and performance are the sus, Leadership, and Innovations in Social norms, peer pressure from coworkers, Should you use group peer pres- Groups,\u201d Scientific Reports 3 (2013), article whether direct or indirect, can encour- sure? As a leader, you may need to. number 2905; A. Verghese, \u201cThe Healing Pow- age high performance from those not One survey found that only 6 percent er of Peer Pressure,\u201d Newsweek, March 14, meeting expectations. A group with a of leaders reported being able to suc- 2011, www.newsweek.com; J. Meer, \u201cBrother, norm toward behaving ethically could cessfully influence their employees Can You Spare a Dime? Peer Pressure in also use peer pressure to minimize on their own. Peer pressure hastens Charitable Solicitation,\u201d Journal of Public Eco- negative behavior. Thus, peer pressure a group toward consensus, and levels nomics 95, no. 7\u20138 (2011): 926\u201341; and L. can promote all sorts of good behav- of peer pressure predict how much Potter, \u201cLack Influence at Work? Why Most iors, from donating to charity to volun- the leader can control the group. If Leaders Struggle to Lead Positive Change,\u201d teering at the local soup kitchen. you use peer pressure to encourage Yahoo, May 14, 2013, http:\/\/finance .yahoo.com\/news\/lack-influence-why-most- leaders-121500672.html.","324 PART 3 The Group reference groups Important groups to making indicated an even stronger effect of conformity when subjects found the which individuals belong or hope to belong nonconforming ideas not just incorrect but objectionable.33 Does that mean we are mere robots? Certainly not. The flip side of the 37 percent of\u00a0conform- and with whose norms individuals are likely ing responses is the 63 percent of independent responses, and 95\u00a0percent gave the correct (nonconforming) response at least once. Therefore, we feel the to conform. pressure to conform, but it is not a perfect predictor of what we will do. Further- more, we don\u2019t tend to like the pressure. Asch wrote, \u201cThose who participated in this challenging experiment agreed nearly without exception that indepen- dence was preferable to conformity.\u201d34 Do individuals conform to the pressures of all groups to which they belong? Obviously not, because people belong to many groups, and their norms vary and sometimes are contradictory. People conform to their reference groups, in which a person is aware of other members, defines himself or herself as a member or would like to be a member, and feels group members are significant to him or her. The implication, then, is that all groups do not impose equal conformity pressures on their members. Norms and behavior Norms can cover any aspect of group behavior.35 As we\u2019ve mentioned, norms in the workplace significantly influence employee behavior. This may seem intui- tive, but full appreciation of the influence of norms on worker behavior did not occur until the Hawthorne Studies conducted between 1924 and 1932 at the Western Electric Company\u2019s Hawthorne Works in Chicago.36 In the studies, the researchers first examined the relationship between the physical environment and productivity. As they increased the light level for the experimental group of workers, output rose for that unit and the control group. But as they dropped the light level, productivity continued to increase. In fact, productivity in the experimental group decreased only when the light intensity From studies of employees at the Western Electric Company\u2019s Hawthorne Works in Chicago, researchers gained valuable insights into how individual behavior is influenced by group norms. They also learned that money was less of a factor in determining worker output than were group standards, sentiments, and security. Source: Hawthorne Museum of Morton College","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 325 had been reduced to that of moonlight, leading researchers to believe that group dynamics, rather than the environment, influenced behavior. The researchers next isolated a small group of women assembling telephones so their behavior could be more carefully observed. Over the next several years, this small group\u2019s output increased steadily, and the number of personal and sick absences was approximately one-third of that in the regular production department. It became evident this group\u2019s performance was significantly influ- enced by its \u201cspecial\u201d status. The members thought they were in an elite group, and that management showed concern about their interests by engaging in experimentation. In essence, workers in both the illumination and assembly experiments were really reacting to the increased attention they received. A wage incentive plan was then introduced in the bank wiring observation room. The most important finding was that employees did not individually maximize their output. Rather, their role performance became controlled by a group norm. Members were afraid that if they significantly increased their output, the unit incentive rate might be cut, the expected daily output might be increased, layoffs might occur, or slower workers might be reprimanded. So the group established its idea of a fair output\u2014neither too much nor too little. Members helped each other ensure their reports were nearly level, and the norms the group established included a number of behavioral \u201cdon\u2019ts.\u201d Don\u2019t be a rate-buster, turning out too much work. Don\u2019t be a chiseler, turning out too little work. Don\u2019t squeal on any of your peers. The group enforced its norms with name-calling, ridicule, and even punches to the upper arms of violators. It thus operated well below its capability, using norms that were tightly established and strongly enforced. Positive Norms and Group Outcomes One goal of every organization with corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives is for its values to hold normative sway over employees. After all, if employees aligned their thinking with positive norms, these norms would become stronger and the probability of positive impact would grow exponentially. We might ex- pect the same outcomes from political correctness (PC) norms. But what is the effect of strong positive norms on group outcomes? The popular thinking is that to increase creativity in groups, for instance, norms should be loosened. How- ever, research on gender-diverse groups indicates that strong PC norms increase group creativity. Why? Clear expectations about male-female interactions reduce uncertainty about group expectations,37 which allows the members to more easily express their creative ideas without combatting stereotype norms. Positive group norms may well beget positive outcomes, but only if other factors are present, too. For instance, in a recent study a high level of group extraversion predicted helping behaviors more strongly when there were posi- tive cooperation norms.38 As powerful as norms can be, though, not everyone is equally susceptible to positive group norms. Individual personalities factor in, too, as well as the level of a person\u2019s social identity with the group. Also, a recent study in Germany indicated that the more satisfied people were with their groups, the more closely they followed group norms.39 Negative Norms and Group Outcomes LeBron is frustrated by a coworker who constantly spreads malicious and unsubstantiated rumors about him. Lindsay is tired of a member of her work- group who, when confronted with a problem, takes out his frustration by yelling and screaming at her and other members. And Mi-Cha recently quit her job as a dental hygienist after being sexually harassed by her employer.","326 PART 3 The Group deviant workplace behavior Voluntary What do these illustrations have in common? They represent employees behavior that violates significant organiza- exposed to acts of deviant workplace behavior.40 As we discussed in Chapter 3, counterproductive work behavior (CWB) or deviant workplace behavior (also tional norms and, in so doing, threatens the called antisocial behavior or workplace incivility) is voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of well-being of the organization or its members. the organization or its members. Exhibit 9-3 provides a typology of deviant workplace behaviors, with examples of each. Also called antisocial behavior or workplace Few organizations will admit to creating or condoning conditions that incivility. encourage and maintain deviant behaviors. Yet they exist. For one, as we dis- cussed before, a workgroup can become characterized by positive or negative attributes. When those attributes are negative, such as when a workgroup is high in psychopathy and aggression, the characteristics of deceit, amorality, and intent to harm others are pronounced.41 Second, employees have been reporting an increase in rudeness and disregard toward others by bosses and coworkers in recent years. Workplace incivility, like many other deviant behav- iors, has many negative outcomes for the victims.42 Nearly half of employees who have suffered this incivility say it has led them to think about changing jobs; 12 percent actually quit because of it.43 Also, a study of nearly 1,500 respondents found that in addition to increasing turnover intentions, incivility at work increased reports of psychological stress and physical illness.44 Third, research suggests that a lack of sleep, which is often caused by heightened work demands and which hinders a person\u2019s ability to regulate emotions and behaviors, can lead to deviant behavior. As organizations have tried to do more with less, pushing their employees to work extra hours, they may indirectly be facilitating deviant behavior.45 Like norms in general, employees\u2019 antisocial actions are shaped by the group context within which they work. Evidence demonstrates deviant work- place behavior is likely to flourish where it\u2019s supported by group norms.46 For example, workers who socialize either at or outside work with people who are frequently absent from work are more likely to be absent themselves.47 Thus when deviant workplace norms surface, employee cooperation, commitment, and motivation are likely to suffer. Exhibit 9-3 typology of deviant Workplace behavior Category Examples Production Leaving early Intentionally working slowly Property Wasting resources Political Sabotage Lying about hours worked Personal aggression Stealing from the organization Showing favoritism Gossiping and spreading rumors Blaming coworkers Sexual harassment Verbal abuse Stealing from coworkers Sources: S. H. Appelbaum, G. D. Iaconi, and A. Matousek, \u201cPositive and Negative Deviant Workplace Behaviors: Causes, Impacts, and Solutions,\u201d Corporate Governance 7, no. 5 (2007): 586\u201398; and R. W. Griffin, and A. O\u2019Leary-Kelly, The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior (New York: Wiley, 2004).","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 327 What are the consequences of workplace deviance for groups? Some research suggests a chain reaction occurs in groups with high levels of dysfunctional behavior.48 The process begins with negative behaviors like shirking, undermin- ing coworkers, or being generally uncooperative. As a result of these behaviors, the group collectively starts to have negative moods. These negative moods then result in poor coordination of effort and lower levels of group performance. Norms and Culture Do people in collectivist cultures have different norms than people in individu- alist cultures? Of course they do. But did you know that our orientation may be changed, even after years of living in one society? In a recent experiment, an organizational role-playing exercise was given to a neutral group of subjects; the exercise stressed either collectivist or individualist norms. Subjects were then given a task of their personal choice or were assigned one by an ingroup or out- group person. When the individualist-primed subjects were allowed personal choice of the task, or the collectivist-primed subjects were assigned the task by an ingroup person, they became more highly motivated.49 9-5 Show how status and size Group Property 3: Status, and Group differences affect group Property 4: Size and Dynamics performance. We\u2019ve discussed how the roles we play and the norms we internalize tend to status A socially defined position or rank dictate our behavior in groups. However, those are not the only two factors given to groups or group members by others. that influence who we are in a group and how the group functions. Have you ever noticed how groups tend to stratify into higher- and lower-status members? Sometimes the status of members reflects their status outside the group setting, but not always. Also, status often varies between groups of different sizes. Let\u2019s examine how these factors affect a workgroup\u2019s efficacy. Group Property 3: status Status\u2014a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others\u2014permeates every society. Even the smallest group will show differ- ences in member status over time. Status is a significant motivator and has major behavioral consequences when individuals perceive a disparity between what they believe their status is and what others perceive it to be. status characteristics theory What determines status? According to status characteristics theory, status A theory that states that differences in tends to derive from one of three sources:50 1. The power a person wields over others. Because they likely control the status characteristics create status hierarchies group\u2019s resources, people who control group outcomes tend to be perceived within groups. as high status. 2. A person\u2019s ability to contribute to a group\u2019s goals. People whose contribu- tions are critical to the group\u2019s success tend to have high status. 3. An individual\u2019s personal characteristics. Someone whose personal characteristics are positively valued by the group (good looks, intelligence, money, or a friendly personality) typically has higher status than someone with fewer valued attributes. status and Norms Status has some interesting effects on the power of norms and pressures to conform. High-status individuals may be more likely to de- viate from norms when they have low identification (social identity) with the","328 PART 3 The Group Aaron Rodgers has high status as the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers football team. His status derives from his ability to contribute to his team\u2019s success in winning games. Rodgers\u2019s teammates and coaches value his character, leadership skills, expertise in calling plays, and ability to accurately throw touchdown passes on the move. Source: Matt Ludtke\/AP Images group.51 They also eschew pressure from lower-ranking members of other groups. For instance, physicians actively resist administrative decisions made by lower-ranking medical insurance company employees.52 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 but doesn\u2019t need or care about the group\u2019s social rewards is particularly able to disregard conformity norms.53 In general, bringing high-status members into a group may improve performance, but only up to a point, perhaps because these members may introduce counter- productive norms.54 status and Group Interaction People tend to become more assertive when they seek to attain higher status in a group.55 They speak out more often, criti- cize more, state more commands, and interrupt others more often. Lower- status members tend to participate less actively in group discussions; when they possess expertise and insights that could aid the group, failure to fully uti- lize these members reduces the group\u2019s overall performance. But that doesn\u2019t mean a group of only high-status individuals would be preferable. Adding some high-status individuals to a group of mid-status individuals may be advanta- geous because group performance suffers when too many high-status people are in the mix.56 status Inequity It is important for group members to believe the status hierarchy is equitable. Perceived inequity creates disequilibrium, which inspires various types of corrective behaviors. Hierarchical groups can lead to resentment among those at the lower end of the status continuum. Large differences in status within groups are also associated with poorer individual performance, lower health, and higher intentions for the lower-status members to leave the group.57","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 329 social loafing The tendency for Groups generally agree within themselves on status criteria; hence, there is individuals to expend less effort when working usually high concurrence on group rankings of individuals. Business executives may use personal income or the growth rate of their companies as determinants collectively than when working individually. of status. Government bureaucrats may use the size of their budgets, and blue- collar workers may use their years of seniority. Managers who occupy central positions in their social networks are typically seen as higher in status by their subordinates, and this position actually translates into greater influence over the group\u2019s functioning.58 Groups generally form an informal status order based on ranking and com- mand of needed resources.59 Individuals can find themselves in conflicts when they move between groups whose status criteria are different, or when they join groups whose members have heterogeneous backgrounds. Cultures also differ in their criteria for conferring status upon individuals. When groups are hetero- geneous, status differences may initiate conflict as the group attempts to recon- cile the separate hierarchies. As we\u2019ll see in Chapter 10, this can be a problem when management creates teams of employees from varied functions. status and stigmatization Although it\u2019s clear that your own status affects the way people perceive you, the status of people with whom you are affiliated can also affect others\u2019 views of you. Studies have shown that people who are stigmatized can \u201cinfect\u201d others with their stigma. This \u201cstigma by association\u201d effect can result in negative opinions and evaluations of the person affiliat- ed with the stigmatized individual, even if the association is brief and purely coincidental. Of course, many of the foundations of cultural status differenc- es have no merit in the first place. For example, men interviewing for a job were viewed as less qualified when they were sitting next to an obese woman in a\u00a0 waiting room. Another study looking at the effects of being associated with an overweight person found that even when onlookers were told the tar- get\u00a0person and the overweight person were unrelated, the target person was still devalued.60 Group status Early in life, we acquire an \u201cus and them\u201d mentality.61 You may have correctly surmised that if you are in an outgroup, your group is of lower status in the eyes of the associated ingroup\u2019s members. Culturally, sometimes ingroups represent the dominant forces in a society and are given high status, which can create discrimination against their outgroups. Low-status groups, perhaps in response to this discrimination, are likely to leverage ingroup fa- voritism to compete for higher status.62 When high-status groups then feel the discrimination from low-status groups, they may increase their bias against the outgroups.63 With each cycle, the groups become more polarized. Group Property 4: size and dynamics Does the size of a group affect the group\u2019s overall behavior? Yes, but the effect depends on what dependent variables we examine. Groups with a dozen or more members are good for gaining diverse input. If the goal is fact-finding or idea-generating, then, larger groups should be more effective. Smaller groups of about seven members are better at doing something productive. One of the most important findings about the size of a group concerns social loafing, the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collec- tively than when alone.64 Social loafing directly challenges the assumption that the productivity of the group as a whole should at least equal the sum of the productivity of the individuals in it, no matter what the group size. What causes social loafing? It may be a belief that others in the group are not carrying their fair share. If you see others as lazy or inept, you can reestablish","330 PART 3 The Group equity by reducing your effort. But simply failing to contribute may not be enough for someone to be labeled a \u201cfree rider.\u201d Instead, the group must believe the social loafer is acting in an exploitive manner (benefitting at the expense of other team members).65 Another explanation for social loafing is the diffusion of responsibility. Because group results cannot be attributed to any single person, the relationship between an individual\u2019s input and the group\u2019s output is clouded. Individuals may then be tempted to become free riders and coast on the group\u2019s efforts. The implications for OB are significant. When managers use collective work situations, they must also be able to identify individual efforts. Furthermore, greater performance diversity creates greater social loafing the longer a group is together, which decreases satisfaction and performance.66 Social loafing appears to have a Western bias. It\u2019s consistent with individual- ist cultures, such as the United States and Canada, that are dominated by self- interest. It is not consistent with collectivist societies, in which individuals are motivated by group goals. For example, in studies comparing U.S. employees with employees from China and Israel (both collectivist societies), the Chinese and Israelis showed no propensity to engage in social loafing and actually per- formed better in a group than alone. Research indicates that the stronger an individual\u2019s work ethic is, the less likely that person is to engage in social loafing.67 Also, the greater the level of conscientiousness and agreeableness in a group, the more likely that per- formance will remain high whether there is social loafing or not.68 There are ways to prevent social loafing: (1) set group goals, so the group has a common purpose to strive toward; (2) increase intergroup competition, which focuses on the shared group outcome; (3) engage in peer evaluations; (4)\u00a0select members who have high motivation and prefer to work in groups; and (5)\u00a0 base group rewards in part on each member\u2019s unique contribu- tions.69 Recent research indicates that social loafing can be counteracted by publicly posting individual performance ratings for group members, too.70 Although no magic bullet will prevent social loafing, these steps should help minimize its effect. Young employees of Alibaba\u2019s Tmall online shopping site celebrate their group\u2019s achievement of increasing the volume of sales orders during China\u2019s \u201cSingles Day\u201d shopping event. Although social loafing is consistent with individualistic cultures, in collec- tivist societies such as China, employ- ees are motivated by group goals and perform better in groups than they do by working individually. Source: Han Chuanhao Xinhua News Agency\/Newscom","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 331 9-6 Describe how issues of Group Property 5: Cohesiveness, and Group cohesiveness and diversity Property 6: Diversity can be integrated for group effectiveness. For a group to be highly functioning, it must act cohesively as a unit, but not because all the group members think and act alike. In some ways, the properties of cohesiveness The degree to which group cohesiveness and diversity need to be valued way back at the tacit establishment of members are attracted to each other and are roles and norms\u2014will the group be inclusive of all its members, regardless of dif- ferences in backgrounds? Let\u2019s discuss the importance of group cohesiveness first. motivated to stay in the group. Group Property 5: Cohesiveness diversity The extent to which members of a group are similar to, or different from, one Groups differ in their cohesiveness\u2014the degree to which members are attracted to each other and motivated to stay in the group. Some workgroups are cohesive another. because the members have spent a great deal of time together, the group\u2019s small size or purpose facilitates high interaction, or external threats have brought members close together. Cohesiveness affects group productivity. Studies consistently show that the rela- tionship between cohesiveness and productivity depends on the group\u2019s perfor- mance-related norms.71 If norms for quality, output, and cooperation with outsid- ers are high, a cohesive group will be more productive than 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 are high, productivity increases, but less than in the high-cohesiveness\/high-norms situation. When cohesiveness and performance-related norms are both low, productivity tends to fall into the low-to-moderate range. These conclusions are summarized in Exhibit 9-4. What can you do to encourage group cohesiveness? (1) Make the group smaller, (2) encourage agreement with group goals, (3) increase the time mem- bers spend together, (4) increase the group\u2019s status and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership, (5) stimulate competition with other groups, (6) give rewards to the group rather than to individual members, and (7) physically isolate the group.72 Group Property 6: diversity The final property of groups we consider is diversity in the group\u2019s membership, or the degree to which members of the group are similar to, or different from, one another. Overall, studies identify both costs and benefits from group diversity. Exhibit 9-4 relationship between Group Cohesiveness, Performance Norms, and Productivity Cohesiveness Performance Norms High Low High High Moderate productivity productivity Low Low Moderate to productivity low productivity","332 PART 3 The Group Diversity appears to increase group conflict, especially in the early stages of a group\u2019s tenure; this often lowers group morale and raises dropout rates. One study compared groups that were culturally diverse and homogeneous (composed of people from the same country). On a wilderness survival test, the groups performed equally well, but the members from the diverse groups were less satisfied with their groups, were less cohesive, and had more conflict.73 Another study examined the effect of differences in tenure on the performance of 67 engineering research and development groups.74 When most people had roughly the same level of tenure, performance was high, but as tenure diversity increased, performance dropped off. There was an important qualifier: Higher levels of tenure diversity were not related to lower performance for groups when there were effective team-oriented human resources (HR) practices. More spe- cifically, groups in which members\u2019 values or opinions differ tend to experience more conflict, but leaders who can get the group to focus on the task at hand and encourage group learning are able to reduce these conflicts and enhance discussion of group issues.75 Gender diversity can also be a challenge to a group, but if inclusiveness is stressed, group conflict and dissatisfaction are lowered.76 You may have correctly surmised that the type of group diversity matters. Surface-level diversity\u2014in observable characteristics such as national origin, race, and gender\u2014alerts people to possible deep-level diversity\u2014in underlying attitudes, values, and opinions. One researcher argues, \u201cThe mere presence of diversity you can see, such as a person\u2019s race or gender, actually cues a team that there\u2019s likely to be differences of opinion.\u201d77 Surface-level diversity may subconsciously cue team members to be more open-minded in their views.78 For example, two studies of MBA student groups found surface-level diversity led to greater openness. The effects of deep-level diversity are less understood. Research in Korea indicates that putting people with a high need for power with those with a low need for power can reduce unproductive group competition, whereas putting individuals with a similar need for achievement may increase task\u00a0performance.79 Although differences can lead to conflict, they also provide an opportunity to solve problems in unique ways. One study of jury behavior found diverse juries were more likely to deliberate longer, share more information, and make fewer factual errors when discussing evidence. Altogether, the impact of diversity on groups is mixed. It is difficult to be in a diverse group in the short term. However, if members can weather their differences, over time diversity may help them be more open-minded and creative and to do better. But even positive effects are unlikely to be especially strong. As one review stated, \u201cThe business case (in terms of demonstrable financial results) for diversity remains hard to support based on the extant research.\u201d80 Yet, other researchers argue that we shouldn\u2019t overlook the effects of homogeneity, many of which can be detrimental.81 PerSonAl InVenTory ASSeSSmenTS P I A PERSONAL INVENTORY communicating Supportively ASSESSMENT Are you a supportive person? Take this PIA to find out if you communicate supportively. faultlines The perceived divisions that One possible side effect in diverse teams\u2014especially those that are diverse split groups into two or more subgroups based in terms of surface-level characteristics\u2014is faultlines, or perceived divisions that split groups into two or more subgroups based on individual differences such as on individual differences such as sex, race, sex, race, age, work experience, and education. age, work experience, and education.","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 333 9-7 Contrast the strengths and For example, let\u2019s say group A is composed of three men and three women. weaknesses of group The three men have approximately the same amount of work experience and decision making. backgrounds in marketing. The three women have about the same amount of work experience and backgrounds in finance. Group B has three men and three women, but they all differ in terms of their experience and backgrounds. Two of the men are experienced, while the other is new. One of the women has worked at the company for several years, while the other two are new. In addition, two of the men and one woman in group B have backgrounds in marketing, while the other man and the remaining two women have backgrounds in finance. It is thus likely that a faultline will result in subgroups of males and females in group A but not in group B, based on the differentiating characteristics. Research on faultlines has shown that splits are generally detrimental to group functioning and performance. Subgroups may compete with each other, which takes time away from core tasks and harms group performance. Groups that have subgroups learn more slowly, make more risky decisions, are less cre- ative, and experience higher levels of conflict. Subgroups may not trust each other. Finally, satisfaction with subgroups is generally high, but the overall group\u2019s satisfaction is lower when faultlines are present.82 Are faultlines ever a good thing? One study suggested that faultlines based on differences in skill, knowledge, and expertise could be beneficial when the groups were in organizational cultures that strongly emphasized results. Why? A results-driven culture focuses people\u2019s attention on what\u2019s important to the company rather than on problems arising from subgroups.83 Another study showed that problems stemming from strong faultlines based on gen- der and educational major were counteracted when their roles were cross-cut and the group as a whole was given a common goal to strive for. Together, these strategies force collaboration between members of subgroups and focus their efforts on accomplishing a goal that transcends the boundary imposed by the faultline.84 Overall, although research on faultlines suggests that diversity in groups is potentially a double-edged sword, recent work indicates they can be strategically employed to improve performance. Group Decision Making The belief\u2014characterized by juries\u2014that two heads are better than one has long been accepted as a basic component of the U.S. legal system and those of many other countries. Many decisions in organizations are made by groups, teams, or committees. We\u2019ll discuss the advantages of group decision making, along with the unique challenges group dynamics bring to the decision-making process. Finally, we\u2019ll offer some techniques for maximizing the group decision- making opportunity. Groups versus the Individual Decision-making groups may be widely used in organizations, but are group decisions preferable to those made by an individual alone? The answer depends on a number of factors. Let\u2019s begin by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making. strengths of Group decision Making Groups generate more complete information and knowledge. By aggregating the resources of several individuals, groups bring more input as well as heterogeneity into the decision process. They offer increased diversity of views. This opens up the opportunity to consider more","334 PART 3 The Group approaches\u00a0 and alternatives. Finally, groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution. Group members who participate in making a decision are more likely to enthusiastically support and encourage others to accept it later. Weaknesses of Group decision Making Group decisions are time-consuming because groups typically take more time to reach a solution. There are confor- mity pressures. The desire by group members to be accepted and considered an asset to the group can squash any overt disagreement. Group discussion can be dominated by one or a few members. If they\u2019re low- and medium-ability members, the group\u2019s overall effectiveness will suffer. Finally, group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility. In an individual decision, it\u2019s clear who is accountable for the final outcome. In a group decision, the responsibility of any single member is diluted. effectiveness and efficiency Whether groups are more effective than individ- uals depends on how you define effectiveness. Group decisions are generally more accurate than the decisions of the average individual in a group, but less accurate than the judgments of the most accurate person.85 In terms of speed, individuals are superior. If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effec- tive. And if effectiveness means the degree of acceptance of achievable solutions, the nod again goes to the group.86 But we cannot consider effectiveness without also assessing efficiency. With few exceptions, group decision making consumes more work hours than having an individual tackle the same problem. The exceptions tend to be instances in which, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talk- ing to other people. In deciding whether to use groups, then, managers must assess whether increases in effectiveness are more than enough to offset the reductions in efficiency. In summary, groups are an excellent vehicle for performing many steps in the decision-making process and offer both breadth and depth of input for information gathering. If group members have diverse backgrounds, the alter- natives generated should be more extensive and the analysis more critical. When the final solution is agreed on, there are more people in a group decision to support and implement it. These pluses, however, may be more than offset by the time consumed by group decisions, the internal conflicts they create, and the pressures they generate toward conformity. We must be careful to define the types of conflicts, however. Research in Korea indicates that group conflicts about tasks may increase group performance, while conflicts in relationships may decrease performance.87 In some cases, therefore, we can expect individu- als to make better decisions than groups. groupthink A phenomenon in which the Groupthink and Groupshift norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Two by-products of group decision making, groupthink and groupshift, can affect a group\u2019s ability to appraise alternatives objectively and achieve high- groupshift A change between a group\u2019s quality solutions. decision and an individual decision that a member within the group would make; the Groupthink relates to norms and describes situations in which group pres- shift can be toward either conservatism or sures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minor- greater risk but it generally is toward a more ity, or unpopular views. Groupthink attacks many groups and can dramatically extreme version of the group\u2019s original position. hinder their performance. Groupshift describes the way group members tend to exaggerate their initial positions when discussing a given set of alternatives to arrive at a solution. In some situations, caution dominates and there is a conser- vative shift, while in other situations groups tend toward a risky shift. Let\u2019s look at each phenomenon in detail.","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 335 can i fudge the numbers and not take the blame? Career Objectives I\u2019ve got a great workgroup, except for collective, we want to stay in the group change the climate of the group to value one thing: the others make me omit and can become vulnerable to pres- ethical behavior. Then the next time you negative information about our group\u2019s sures to conform. The pressure you\u2019re need to report the numbers, you can success that I\u2019m in charge of as the getting from multiple members can call upon the group\u2019s increased ethical treasurer. They gang up on me, insult make you aware that you\u2019re in the mi- awareness to gain support for your lead- me, and threaten me, so in the end I nority in the group, and taunting can ership decisions. report what they want. They say omit- make you feel like an outsider or lesser ting the negative information is not re- member; therefore threats to harm your Sources: M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, \u201cThe ally wrong, and it doesn\u2019t violate our group standing may feel powerful. Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An organization\u2019s rules, but on my own Integrative Review,\u201d Perspectives on Psycho- I would report everything. I need to So you have a choice: Submit to the logical Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 245\u201374; M. stay in the group or I\u2019ll lose my job. pressure and continue misrepresenting A. Korsgaard, H. H. Brower, and S. W. Lester, If we are called out on the numbers, your group\u2019s success, or adhere to the \u201cIt Isn\u2019t Always Mutual: A Critical Review of can I just put the blame on the whole responsibility you have as the treasurer Dyadic Trust,\u201d Journal of Management 41, group? and come clean. From an ethical stand- no. 1 (2015): 47\u201370; R. L. Priem and P. C. point, we hope you don\u2019t consider the Nystrom, \u201cExploring the Dynamics of Work- \u2014 Jean-Claude first option an acceptable choice. To group Fracture: Common Ground, Trust-With- Dear Jean-Claude: make a change, you may be able to use Trepidation, and Warranted Distrust,\u201d Journal The short answer is that, since you are social identification to your advantage. of Management 40, no. 3 (2014): 674\u2013795. in a leadership role in the group, you Rather than challenging the group as a may not have the option of blaming the whole, try meeting with individual group The opinions provided here are of the manag- others. Further, you may be held indi- members to build trust, talking to each ers and authors only and do not necessar- vidually accountable as a leader for the as fellow members of a worthy group ily reflect those of their organizations. The outcomes of this situation. that can succeed without any ethical authors or managers are not responsible for quandaries. Don\u2019t try to build a coalition; any errors or omissions, or for the results ob- Your dilemma is not unusual. Once instead, build trust with individuals and tained from the use of this information. In no we think of ourselves as part of a event will the authors or managers, or their related partnerships or corporations thereof, be liable to you or anyone else for any deci- sion made or action taken in reliance on the opinions provided here. Groupthink Groupthink appears closely aligned with the conclusions Solomon Asch drew in his experiments with a lone dissenter. Individuals who hold a position different from that of the dominant majority are under pressure to suppress, withhold, or modify their true feelings and beliefs. As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement\u2014to be a positive part of the group\u2014than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption would improve ef- fectiveness. Groups that are more focused on performance than learning are especially likely to fall victim to groupthink and to suppress the opinions of those who do not agree with the majority.88 Does groupthink attack all groups? No. It seems to occur most often when there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive image of their group they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to its positive image.89 One study showed that those influenced by groupthink were more confident about their course of action early on;90 however, groups that believe too strongly in the correctness of their course of action are more likely to suppress dissent and encourage conformity than groups that are more skeptical about their course of action. What can managers do to minimize groupthink?91 First, they can monitor group size. People grow more intimidated and hesitant as group size increases, and although there is no magic number that will eliminate groupthink, indi- viduals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups get larger","336 PART 3 The Group interacting groups Typical groups in than about 10 members. Managers should also encourage group leaders to which members interact with each other face play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members to face. and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially in the early stages of delib- eration. In addition, managers should appoint one group member to play the brainstorming An idea-generation role of devil\u2019s advocate, overtly challenging the majority position and offering process that specifically encourages any and divergent perspectives. Yet another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate all alternatives while withholding any criticism active discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group or inten- of those alternatives. sifying identity protection. Have group members delay discussion of possible gains so they can first talk about the dangers or risks inherent in a decision. Requiring members to initially focus on the negatives of an alternative makes the group less likely to stifle dissenting views and more likely to gain an objec- tive evaluation. Groupshift or Group Polarization There are differences between group deci- sions and the individual decisions of group members.92 In groups, discussion leads members toward a more extreme view of the position they already held. Conservatives become more cautious, and more aggressive types take on more risk. We can view this group polarization as a special case of groupthink. The group\u2019s decision reflects the dominant decision-making norm\u2014toward greater caution or more risk\u2014that develops during discussion. The shift toward polarization has several explanations.93 It\u2019s been argued, for instance, that discussion makes the members more comfortable with each other and thus more willing to express extreme versions of their original posi- tions. Another argument is that the group diffuses responsibility. Group deci- sions free any single member from accountability for the group\u2019s final choice, so a more extreme position can be taken. It\u2019s also likely that people take extreme positions because they want to demonstrate how different they are from the outgroup.94 People on the fringes of political or social movements take on ever- more-extreme positions just to prove they are really committed to the cause, whereas those who are more cautious tend to take moderate positions to dem- onstrate how reasonable they are. So how should you use the findings on groupshift? Recognize that group decisions exaggerate the initial position of individual members, that the shift has been shown more often to be toward greater risk, and that which way a group will shift is a function of the members\u2019 pre-discussion inclinations. We now turn to the techniques by which groups make decisions. These reduce some of the dysfunctional aspects of group decision making. Group decision-Making techniques The most common form of group decision making takes place in interacting groups. Members meet face to face and rely on both verbal and nonverbal interaction to communicate. But as our discussion of groupthink demonstrated, interacting groups often censor themselves and pressure individual members toward conformity of opinion. Brainstorming and the nominal group technique can reduce problems inherent in the traditional interacting group. brainstorming Brainstorming can overcome the pressures for conformity that dampen creativity95 by encouraging any and all alternatives while withholding criticism. In a typical brainstorming session, a half-dozen to a dozen people sit around a table. The group leader states the problem in a clear manner so all participants understand. Members then freewheel as many alternatives as they can in a given length of time. To encourage members to \u201cthink the unusual,\u201d no criticism is allowed, even of the most bizarre suggestions, and all ideas are recorded for later discussion and analysis.","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 337 Exhibit 9-5 evaluating Group effectiveness Effectiveness Criteria Interacting Type of Group Nominal Number and quality of ideas Low Brainstorming High Social pressure High Moderate Moderate Money costs Low Low Low Speed Moderate Low Moderate Task orientation Low Moderate High Potential for interpersonal con\ufb02ict High High Moderate Commitment to solution High Low Moderate Development of group cohesiveness High Not applicable Moderate High nominal group technique A group Brainstorming may indeed generate ideas\u2014but not in a very efficient decision-making method in which individual manner. Research consistently shows individuals working alone generate more ideas than a group in a brainstorming session. One reason for this is \u201cproduction members meet face to face to pool their blocking.\u201d When people are generating ideas in a group, many are talking at once, which blocks individuals\u2019 thought process and eventually impedes the judgments in a systematic but independent sharing of ideas.96 fashion. Nominal Group technique The nominal group technique may be more effective. This technique restricts discussion and interpersonal communication during the decision-making process. Group members are all physically present, as in a traditional meeting, but they operate independently. Specifically, a problem is presented and then the group takes the following steps: 1. Before any discussion takes place, each member independently writes down ideas about the problem. 2. After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. No discussion takes place until all ideas have been presented and recorded. 3. The group discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them. 4. Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision. The chief advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits a group to meet formally but does not restrict independent thinking. Research generally shows nominal groups outperform brainstorming groups.97 Each of the group-decision techniques has its own set of strengths and weak- nesses. The choice depends on the criteria you want to emphasize and the cost\u2013benefit trade-off. As Exhibit 9-5 indicates, an interacting group is good for achieving commitment to a solution, brainstorming develops group cohesive- ness, and the nominal group technique is an inexpensive means for generating a large number of ideas. Summary We can draw several implications from our discussion of groups. First, norms control behavior by establishing standards of right and wrong. Second, status inequities create frustration and can adversely influence productivity and will- ingness to remain with an organization. Third, the impact of size on a group\u2019s","338 PART 3 The Group performance depends on the type of task. Fourth, cohesiveness may influence a group\u2019s level of productivity, depending on the group\u2019s performance-related norms. Fifth, diversity appears to have a mixed impact on group performance, with some studies suggesting that diversity can help performance and others suggesting the opposite. Sixth, role conflict is associated with job-induced ten- sion and job dissatisfaction.98 Groups can be carefully managed toward positive organizational outcomes and optimal decision-making. The next chapter will explore several of these conclusions in greater depth. Implications for Managers \u25cf\u25cf Recognize that groups can dramatically affect individual behavior in organizations, to either positive or negative effect. Therefore, pay spe- cial attention to roles, norms, and cohesion\u2014to understand how these are operating within a group is to understand how the group is likely to behave. \u25cf\u25cf To decrease the possibility of deviant workplace activities, ensure that group norms do not support antisocial behavior. \u25cf\u25cf Pay attention to the status aspect of groups. Because lower-status people tend to participate less in group discussions, groups with high status dif- ferences are likely to inhibit input from lower-status members and reduce their potential. \u25cf\u25cf Use larger groups for fact-finding activities and smaller groups for action-taking tasks. With larger groups, provide measures of individual performance. \u25cf\u25cf To increase employee satisfaction, make certain people perceive their job roles accurately.","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 339 People are More creative When they Work alone PoInT CounTerPoInT Iknow groups are all the rage. Businesses are knocking down walls I\u2019ll grant you there are circumstances in which groups can hinder and cubicles to create more open, \u201ccollaborative\u201d environments. creative progress, but if the right conditions are put in place, Students in universities are constantly working on group projects, groups are simply much better at coming up with novel solutions and even young children are learning in small groups. to problems than are individuals. Using strategies such as the nominal group technique, brainstorming, and ensuring that individuals do not I also know why groups are all the rage. Work, they say, has become evaluate others\u2019 ideas until all have been generated are just a few too complex for individuals to perform alone. Groups are better at ways you can set up groups for creative success. brainstorming and coming up with creative solutions to complicated problems. Groups also produce higher levels of commitment and sat- The fact of the matter is that problems are too complex these isfaction\u2014so long as group members develop feelings of cohesiveness days for individuals to effectively perform alone. Consider the rov- and trust one another. ers launched by nASA to roam around mars collecting data. An ac- complishment like that is made possible only by a group, not a lone But for every group that comes up with a creative solution, I\u2019ll individual. Steve Wozniak\u2019s collaboration with Steve Jobs is what really show you twice as many individuals who would come up with a bet- made Apple sail as a company. And could you assemble a car all by ter solution had they only been left alone. Consider creative geniuses yourself? like DaVinci, newton, and Picasso. or more recently, Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple Computer. All were introverts who toiled by In addition, the most influential research is conducted by groups of themselves. According to Wozniak, \u201cI\u2019m going to give you some advice academics, rather than individuals. Indeed, if you look at recent nobel that might be hard to take. That advice is: Work alone \u2026 not on a com- Prize winners in areas such as economics, physics, and chemistry, mittee. not on a team.\u201d the majority have been won by academics who collaborated on the research. But enough anecdotal evidence. research has also shown that groups can kill creativity. one study found that computer program- So if you want creativity (and who doesn\u2019t?), two heads are in fact mers at companies that give them privacy and freedom from inter- better than one. ruptions outperformed their counterparts at companies that forced more openness and collaboration. or consider Adrian Furnham, an organizational psychologist whose research led him to conclude that \u201cbusiness people must be insane to use brainstorming groups.\u201d Peo- ple slack off in groups, and they\u2019re afraid to communicate any ideas that might make them sound dumb. These problems don\u2019t exist when people work alone. So heed Picasso\u2019s advice: \u201cWithout great solitude, no serious work is possible.\u201d Sources: S. Cain, \u201cThe rise of the new Groupthink,\u201d The New York Times, January 15, 2012, 1, 6; and C. Faure, \u201cBeyond Brainstorming: effects of Different Group Procedures on Selection of Ideas and Satisfaction with the Process,\u201d Journal of Creative Behavior 38 (2004): 13\u201334.","340 PART 3 The Group chaPter revieW MyManagementLab Go to mymanagementlab.com to complete the problems marked with this icon. QUestiOns fOr revieW 9-5 How do status and size differences affect group 9-1 What are the different types of groups? performance? 9-2 What are the key components of the 9-6 How can cohesiveness and diversity support punctuated-equilibrium model? group effectiveness? 9-3 How do role requirements change in different 9-7 What are the strengths and weaknesses of group situations? (versus individual) decision making? 9-4 How do group norms influence an individual\u2019s behavior? exPerientiaL exercise Surviving the Wild: Join a Group or Go It Alone? You are a member of a hiking party. After reaching base c. 4 fires in a cross camp on the first day, you decide to take a quick sun- d. 3 fires in a line set hike by yourself. After a few exhilarating miles, you decide to return to camp. On your way back, you realize 9-10. You are very thirsty. You go to a nearby stream and you are lost. You shout for help, to no avail. It is now collect some water in the small metal cup you have dark. And getting cold. in your backpack. How long should you boil the water? Your Task a. 15 minutes Without communicating with anyone else in your group, b. A few seconds read the following scenarios and choose the best answer. c. 1 minute Keep track of your answers on a sheet of paper. You have d. It depends on the altitude. 10 minutes to answer the 10 questions. 9-11. You are very hungry, so you decide to eat what 9-8. The first thing you decide to do is to build a fire. appear to be edible berries. When performing the However, you have no matches, so you use the universal edibility test, what should you do? bow-and-drill method. What is the bow-and-drill a. Do not eat for 2 hours before the test. method? b. If the plant stings your lip, confirm the sting by a. A dry, soft stick is rubbed between the hands holding it under your tongue for 15 minutes. against a board of supple green wood. c. If nothing bad has happened 2 hours after b. A soft green stick is rubbed between the hands digestion, eat half a cup of the plant and wait against a hardwood board. again. c. A straight stick of wood is quickly rubbed back d. Separate the plant into its basic components and forth against a dead tree. and eat each component, one at a time. d. Two sticks (one being the bow, the other the drill) are struck to create a spark. 9-12. Next, you decide to build a shelter for the evening.\u00a0In selecting a site, what do you not have 9-9. It occurs to you that you can also use the fire as a to\u00a0consider? distress signal. How do you form the international a. It must contain material to make the type of distress signal with fire? shelter you need. a. 2 fires b. It must be free of insects, reptiles, and b. 4 fires in a square poisonous plants.","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 341 c. It must be large enough and level enough for 9-17. You decide to eat some insects. Which insects you to lie down comfortably. should you avoid? a. Adults that sting or bite d. It must be on a hill so you can signal rescuers b. Caterpillars and insects that have a pungent and keep an eye on your surroundings. odor c. Hairy or brightly colored ones 9-13. In the shelter, you notice a spider. You heard from d. All the above a fellow hiker that black widow spiders populate the\u00a0area. How do you identify a black widow spider? Group Task a. Its head and abdomen are black; its thorax Next, break into groups of five or six people. Once the is red. group comes to an agreement for what to do in each sit- b.It is attracted to light. uation, write your decision on the same sheet of paper c. It runs away from light. you used for your individual answers. d. It is dark with a red or orange marking on the female\u2019s abdomen. Scoring Your Answers Your instructor will provide you with the correct answers, 9-14. After getting some sleep, you notice that the night which are based on expert judgments in these situations. sky has cleared, so you decide to try to find your Once you have received the answers, calculate (A) your way back to base camp. You believe you can use the individual score; (B) your group\u2019s score; (C) the average North Star for navigation. How do you locate the individual score in the group; and (D) the best individu- North Star? al score in the group. Write these down and consult with a. Hold your right hand up as far as you can and your group to ensure they are accurate. look between your index and middle fingers. b. Find Sirius and look 60 degrees above it and to A. Your individual score \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the right. c. Look for the Big Dipper and follow the line B. Your group\u2019s score \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 created by its cup end. d.Follow the line of Orion\u2019s belt. C. Average individual score in group \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 9-15. You come across a fast-moving stream. What is the D. Best individual score in group \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 best way to cross it? a. Find a spot downstream from a sandbar, where Discussion Questions the water will be calmer. 9-18. How did your group (B) perform relative to your- b. Build a bridge. self (A)? c. Find a rocky area, because the water will be 9-19. How did your group (B) perform relative to the shallow and you will have hand- and footholds. average individual score in the group (C)? d. Find a level stretch where it breaks into a few 9-20. How did your group (B) perform relative to the channels. best individual score in the group (D)? 9-21. Compare your results with those of other groups. 9-16. After walking for about an hour, you feel several Did some groups do a better job of outperforming spiders in your clothes. You don\u2019t feel any pain, but individuals than others? you know some spider bites are painless. Which of 9-22. What do these results tell you about the effective- these spider bites is painless? ness of group decision making? a. Black widow 9-23. What can groups do to make group decision mak- b. Brown recluse ing more effective? c. Wolf spider 9-24. What circumstances might cause a group to per- d. Harvestman (daddy longlegs) form worse than its best individual? ethicaL DiLeMMa It\u2019s Obvious, They\u2019re Chinese. The antithesis of social loafing was brought into sharp olds and by 2012 (the latest data set available), Shanghai focus back in 2009 when Shanghai became the first Chi- had cemented their position as the top performing stu- nese region to enter the Programme for International Stu- dent groups. dent Assessment (PISA). In its first entry year, Shanghai came top in mathematics, science, and reading by a con- This is an incredible achievement for a region of just siderable margin. PISA looks at the attainments of 15-year- 23.9 million people. Preconceived visions of Chinese stu- dents suggest they learn from rote, but in fact this is not","342 PART 3 The Group the case. In terms of memorization, the Shanghai students loafing; individual and cultural motivators drive the stu- performed less well than those from the United Kingdom. dents forward. So what is it that sets the Shanghai students apart from most of the rest of the world? Questions 9-25. Why does social loafing cause ethical dilemmas? A typical Chinese 15-year-old has eight 40-minute What is it about social loafing that makes it difficult classes each day. Despite this heavy workload, the teacher- to cope with on a one-to-one basis if one your led sessions, according to observers, are performed with colleagues does it? total pupil concentration even though classes can be up 9-26. Social loafing is exposed in performance appraisals to 60 in strength. Age-old Chinese folktales recount the and other methods of assessing productivity and successes of those who show diligence and hard work. output. How should it be handled when it is Concepts such as being gifted or talented have far less exposed? currency than simply working hard. For generations, Chi- 9-27. Most Chinese 15-year-olds spurn television, social nese students have worked hard to achieve good grades media, and console gaming. On the other hand, in their gaokao examinations. These are the key to uni- many of the students do not excel in creative think- versity entrance. ing or problem-solving. To what extent might this be an issue compared to other societies that might The combination of hard work and high stake exami- focus on these aspects? nations mean that an average Chinese 15-year-old does 3 hours of homework every night. There is no time for social Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Program for International Student Assessment, http:\/\/nces.ed.gov\/surveys\/pisa\/index.asp, accessed January 23, 2014; \u201cShanghai Population 2015,\u201d WPR, http:\/\/worldpopulationreview.com\/world-cities\/shanghai-population\/. case inciDent 1 The Calamities of Consensus When it is time for groups to reach a decision, many If consensus is reached, does that mean the decision turn to consensus. Consensus, a situation of agree- is the right one? Critics of consensus-based methods ar- ment, seems like a good idea. To achieve consensus, gue that any decisions ultimately reached are inferior to groups must cooperate and collaborate, which ulti- decisions using other methods such as voting or having mately will produce higher levels of camaraderie and team members provide input to their leader, who then trust. In addition, if everyone agrees, the prevailing makes the final decision. Critics also argue that because wisdom says\u00a0 everyone will be more committed to the of pressures to conform, groupthink is much more likely, decision. and decisions reached through consensus are simply those everyone dislikes the least. However, the need for consensus can sometimes be detrimental to group functioning. Consider the \u201cfiscal Questions cliff\u201d faced by the U.S. government toward the end of 9-28. Is consensus a good way for groups to make deci- 2012. The White House and Congress needed to reach a sions? Why or why not? deal that would reduce the swelling budget deficit. How- 9-29. Can you think of a time when a group of which you ever, many Republicans and Democrats stuck to their were a part relied on consensus? How do you think party lines, refusing to compromise. Many viewed the end the decision turned out? product that achieved consensus as a less-than-optimal so- 9-30. Martin Luther King Jr. once proclaimed, \u201cA lution. The public gave Congress an approval rating of genuine leader is not a seeker of consensus but only 13 percent, expressing frustration with the lack of a modeler of consensus.\u201d What do you think he compromise, but the group may not have been able to meant by that statement? Do you agree with it? function well partly because of the need for consensus in Why or why not? the face of partisanship. Sources: D. Leonhardt, \u201cWhen the Crowd Isn\u2019t Wise,\u201d The New York Times, July 8, 2012, SR BW 4; and K. Jensen, \u201cConsensus Is Poison! Who\u2019s with Me?\u201d Forbes, May 20, 2013, downloaded on May 30, 2013, from www.forbes.com.","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 343 case inciDent 2 Intragroup Trust and Survival When 10 British Army soldiers on a 10-day training exer- and low level of communication, however, trust issues cise descended into Low\u2019s Gully, a narrow chasm that cuts divided the group into subgroups. The initial reconnais- through Mt. Kinabalu in Borneo, each knew \u201cthe golden sance party established common ground and trust that al- rule for such expeditions\u2014never split up.\u201d Yet, the fit- lowed them to complete the mission and reach safety, even test three struggled out of the jungle with a concussion, though they divided yet again. Meanwhile, the main group malaria, and infected wounds 19 days later; two more terri- that stayed with the leaders in the cave under conditions of bly ill soldiers found a village the next day; and the remain- active distrust fractured further. ing five emaciated and injured men were rescued from a cave by a helicopter on day 33. What happened? We will never know whether it would have been better to keep the group together. However, we do know that this On a surface level, the near-tragic fracturing of the small group of soldiers trained to stay together for survival group began with a logical division of labor, according fractured into at least four subgroups because they didn\u2019t to the training\u2019s initiators, Lieutenant Colonel Neill and trust their leaders or their group, endangering all their lives. Major Foster: Questions Because the group would be one of mixed abilities, and 9-31. The review board blamed Neill and Foster. Was the young British and NCOs [non-commissioned officers] this a fair conclusion? Where should blame be were likely to be fitter and more experienced than the apportioned under the circumstances? Hong Kong soldiers, the team would work in two halves on 9-32. Discuss the group properties presented in this the harder phases of the descent. The British, taking ad- chapter and use them to evaluate the failure of this vantage of Mayfield\u2019s expertise (in rock climbing), would group. set up ropes on the difficult sections, while he [Neill] and 9-33. When the exercise was designed, Neill created Foster would concentrate on bringing the Hong Kong a buddy system based on similarity of soldiers\u2019 soldiers down. Every now and then the recce (reconnais- backgrounds (rank, unit, age, fitness, skills level). sance) party would report back, and the expedition would The first group out of the jungle were assigned go on down in one unit until another reconnaissance party buddies and one other: two lance corporals and became necessary. one corporal from the same unit (regular army); ages 24\u201326 with good fitness levels; all top roping The men reported that from then on, perilous climb- and abseiling (TR&A) instructors. The second ing conditions, debilitating sickness, and monsoon rains group out were assigned buddies: a sergeant and permanently divided the group. A review board found a lance corporal from the same unit (elite regular differently, blaming Neill\u2019s and Foster\u2019s leadership and army); ages 25 and 37; good fitness levels; both their decision to take some less-experienced soldiers on with Commando Brigade skills. The group left in the exercise. the cave split into: a lieutenant colonel and a ma- jor (buddies); one from the regular army and one No rulings were made about the near-catastrophic from the part time territorial army; ages 46 and 54; decision to divide the group, but closer inquiries show that fair fitness level; one TR&A and one ski instructor. this temporary workgroup of diverse members who were The second faction was the three from the Hong not previously acquainted started out with a high level of Kong unit\u2014a lance corporal and two privates, all intragroup trust that dissolved over time. The resulting from the Hong Kong unit; ages 24\u201332; fair to good faultlines, based on members\u2019 similarities and differences fitness levels; one with jungle training and two and the establishment of ad hoc leaders, may have been novices. Would you have set up the buddy system inevitable. Neill did? Why or why not, and if not, what would you have changed? Initially, all group members shared the common ground of soldier training, clear roles, and volunteer commitment to the mission. When the leaders ignored the soldiers\u2019 con- cerns about the severity of conditions, lack of preparation, Sources: M. A. Korsgaard, H. H. Brower, and S. W. Lester, \u201cIt Isn\u2019t Always Mutual: A Critical Review of Dyadic Trust,\u201d Journal of Management 41, no. 1 (2014): 47\u201370; R. L. Priem and P. C. Nystrom, \u201cExploring the Dynamics of Workgroup Fracture: Common Ground, Trust-with-Trepidation, and Warranted Distrust,\u201d Journal of Management 40, no. 3 (2014): 764\u201395; and \u201cThe Call of Malaysia\u2019s \u2018Con- querable\u2019 Mount Kinabalu,\u201d BBC, June 5, 2015, http:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/world-asia-33020356.","344 PART 3 The Group MyManagementLab Go to mymanagementlab.com for the following Assisted-graded writing questions: 9-34. Considering Case Incident 1, what are some ways groups can improve the effectiveness of consensus methods to make decisions? 9-35. After reading Case Incident 2, do you feel subgroups are good or bad? Why or why not? What might be the alternative? 9-36. MyManagementLab Only \u2013 comprehensive writing assignment for this chapter. enDnOtes Identification within Workgroups: Concep- \u201cAssessing the Nature of Psychological Con- tualization, Measurement Development, and tracts: A Validation of Six Dimensions,\u201d Journal 1E. J. Boothby, M. S. Clark, and J. A. Bargh, Nomological Network Building,\u201d Journal of of Organizational Behavior (June 2004): 461\u201388; \u201cShared Experiences are Amplified,\u201d Psycho- Management 40, no. 6 (2014): 1700\u201331. and C. Hui, C. Lee, and D. M. Rousseau, logical Science 25, no. 12 (2014): 2209\u201316. 11G. J. Lewis and T. C. Bates, \u201cCommon \u201cPsychological Contract and Organizational 2B. Bastien, J. Jetten, and L. J. Ferris, \u201cPain as Heritable Effects Underpin Concerns over Citizenship Behavior in China: Investigating Social Glue: Shared Pain Increases Coopera- Norm Maintenance and In-Group Favoritism: Generalizability and Instrumentality,\u201d Journal tion,\u201d Psychological Science 25, no. 11 (2014): Evidence from Genetic Analyses of Right-Wing of Applied Psychology (April 2004): 311\u201321. 2079\u201385. Authoritarianism and Traditionalism,\u201d Journal 18M. D. Collins, \u201cThe Effect of Psychological 3N. Karelaia and L. Guillen, \u201cMe, a Woman of Personality 82, no. 4 (2014): 297\u2013309. Contract Fulfillment on Manager Turnover and a Leader: Positive Social Identity and 12S. L. Neuberg, C. M. Warner, S. A. Mistler, Intentions and Its Role as a Mediator in a Identity Conflict,\u201d Organizational Behavior and A. Berlin, E. D. Hill, J. D. Johnson, J. Schober, Casual, Limited-Service Restaurant Environ- Human Decision Processes 125, no. 2 (2014): et al., \u201cReligion and Intergroup Conflict: ment,\u201d International Journal of Hospitality Man- 204\u201319. Findings from the Global Group Relations agement 29, no. 4 (2010): 736\u201342; J. M. Jensen, 4P. Belmi, R. C. Barragan, M. A. Neale, and Project,\u201d Psychological Science 25, no. 1 (2014): R. A. Opland, and A. M. Ryan, \u201cPsychological G. L. Cohen, \u201cThreats to Social Identity Can 198\u2013206. Contracts and Counterproductive Work Be- Trigger Social Deviance,\u201d Personality and Social 13W. M. L. Finlay, \u201cDenunciation and the haviors: Employee Responses to Transactional Psychological Bulletin 41, no. 4 (2015): 467\u201384. Construction of Norms in Group Conflict: and Relational Breach,\u201d Journal of Business and 5H. Takahashi, M. Kato, M. Matsuura, D. Examples from and Al-Qaeda-Supporting Psychology 25, no. 4 (2010): 555\u201368. Mobbs, T. Suhara, and Y. Okubo, \u201cWhen Your Group,\u201d British Journal of Social Psychology 53, 19D. C. Thomas, S. R. Fitzimmons, E. C. Rav- Gain Is My Pain and Your Pain Is My Gain: no. 4 (2014): 691\u2013710. lin, K. Y. Au, B. Z. Ekelund, and C. Barzantny, Neural Correlates of Envy and Schaden- 14T. C. Dennehy, A. Ben-Zeev, and N. Tanigawa, \u201cPsychological Contracts across Cultures,\u201d freude,\u201d Science 323, no. 5916 (2009): 937\u201339; \u201c\u2018Be Prepared\u2019: An Implemental Mindset for Organization Studies 31 (2010): 1437\u201358. and C. W. Leach, R. Spears, N. R. Brans- Alleviating Social-Identity Threat,\u201d British Jour- 20K. S. Wilson and H. M. Baumann, \u201cCaptur- combe, and B. Doosje, \u201cMalicious Pleasure: nal of Social Psychology 53 (2014): 585\u201394. ing a More Complete View of Employees\u2019 Schadenfreude at the Suffering of Another 15M. J. Garfield and A. R. Denis, \u201cToward an Lives outside of Work: The Introduction and Group,\u201d Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Integrated Model of Group Development: Dis- Development of New Interrole Conflict Con- ogy 84, no. 5 (2003): 932\u201343. ruption of Routines by Technology-Induced structs,\u201d Personnel Psychology 68, no. 2 (2015): 6O. Yakushko, M. M. Davidson, and E. N. Wil- Change,\u201d Journal of Management Information 235\u201382. liams, \u201cIdentity Salience Model: A Paradigm Systems 29, no. 3 (2012): 43\u201386; M. J. Waller, J. 21Ibid. for Integrating Multiple Identities in Clinical M. Conte, C. B. Gibson, and M. A. Carpenter, 22See, for example, F. T. Amstad, L L. Meier, Practice,\u201d Psychotherapy 46, no. 2 (2009): \u201cThe Effect of Individual Perceptions of Dead- U. Fasel, A. Elfering, and N. K. Semmer, \u201cA 180\u201392; and S. M. Toh and A. S. Denisi, \u201cHost lines on Team Performance,\u201d Academy of Man- Meta-Analysis of Work-Family Conflict and Country Nationals as Socializing Agents: A agement Review (October 2001): 586\u2013600; and Various Outcomes with a Special Emphasis Social Identity Approach,\u201d Journal of Organiza- A. Chang, P. Bordia, and J. Duck, \u201cPunctuated on Cross-Domain Versus Matching-Domain tional Behavior 28, no. 3 (2007): 281\u2013301. Equilibrium and Linear Progression: Toward a Relations,\u201d Journal of Occupational Health 7N. Karelaia and L. Guillen, \u201cMe, a Woman New Understanding of Group Development,\u201d Psychology 16, no. 2 (2011): 151\u201369. and a Leader: Positive Social Identity and Academy of Management Journal (February 23K. S. Wilson and H. M. Baumann, \u201cCaptur- Identity Conflict.\u201d 2003): 106\u201317. ing a More Complete View of Employees\u2019 8T. Cruwys, E. I. South, K. H. Greenaway, and 16M. M. Kazmer, \u201cDisengaging from a Dis- Lives outside of Work: The Introduction S. A. Haslam, \u201cSocial Identity Reduces Depres- tributed Research Project: Refining a Model and Development of New Interrole Conflict sion by Fostering Positive Attributions,\u201d Social of Group Departures,\u201d Journal of the American Constructs.\u201d Psychological and Personality Science 6, no. 1 Society for Information Science and Technology 24D. Vora and T. Kostova. \u201cA Model of Dual (2015): 65\u201374. (April 2010): 758\u201371. Organizational Identification in the Context 9T. Schmader, K. Block, and B. Lickel, \u201cSocial 17K. Giese and A. Thiel, \u201cThe Psychological of the Multinational Enterprise,\u201d Journal of Identity Threat in Response to Stereotypic Contract in Chinese-African Informal Labor Organizational Behavior 28 (2007): 327\u201350. Film Portrayals: Effects on Self-Conscious Relations,\u201d International Journal of Human Re- 25C. Reade, \u201cDual Identification in Emotion and Implicit Ingroup Attitudes,\u201d Jour- source Management 26, no. 14 (2015): 1807\u201326; Multinational Corporations: Local Manag- nal of Social Issues 71, no. 1 (2015): 54\u201372. L. Sels, M. Janssens, and I. Van den Brande, ers and Their Psychological Attachment 10S. Zhang, G. Chen, X.-P. Chen, D. Liu, and M. D. Johnson, \u201cRelational versus Collective","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 345 to the\u00a0Subsidiary versus the Global Orga- 36J. S. Hassard, \u201cRethinking the Hawthorne Effects,\u201d Academy of Management Journal 46 nization,\u201d International Journal of Human Studies: The Western Electric Research in Its (2003): 486\u201396. Resource\u00a0Management, 12, no. 3 (2001): Social, Political, and Historical Context,\u201d Hu- 47P. Bamberger and M. Biron, \u201cGroup Norms 405\u201324. man Relations 65, no. 11 (2012): 1431\u201361. and Excessive Absenteeism: The Role of Peer 26S. Drury, S. A. Hutchens, D. E. Shuttles- 37J. A. Goncalo, J. A. Chatman, M. M. Duguid, Referent Others,\u201d Organizational Behavior and worth, and C. L. White, \u201cPhilip G. Zimbardo and J. A. Kennedy, \u201cCreativity from Con- Human Decision Processes 103, no. 2 (2007): on His Career and the Stanford Prison Experi- straint? How the Political Correctness Norm 179\u201396; and A. V\u00e4\u00e4n\u00e4nen, N. Tordera, M. ment\u2019s 40th Anniversary,\u201d History of Psychology Influences Creativity in Mixed-Sex Work Kivim\u00e4ki, A. Kouvonen, J. Pentti, A. Linna, 15, no. 2 (2012): 161\u201370; and S. A. Haslam Groups,\u201d Administrative Science Quarterly 60, and J. Vahtera, \u201cThe Role of Work Group in and S. D. Reicher, \u201cContesting the \u2018Nature\u2019 of no. 1 (2015): 1\u201330. Individual Sickness Absence Behavior,\u201d Journal Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo\u2019s 38E. Gonzalez-Mule, D. S. DeGeest, B. W. of Health & Human Behavior 49, no. 4 (2008): Studies Really Show,\u201d Plos Biology 10, no. 11 McCormick, et al., \u201cCan We Get Some Coop- 452\u201367. (2012): e1001426. eration Around Here? The Mediating Role of 48M. S. Cole, F. Walter, and H. Bruch, \u201cAf- 27S. A. Haslam and S. Reicher, \u201cStress- Group Norms on the Relationship between fective Mechanisms Linking Dysfunctional ing the\u00a0Group: Social Identity and the Team Personality and Individual Helping Behavior to Performance in Work Teams: A Unfolding Dynamics of Responses to Stress,\u201d Behaviors,\u201d Journal of Applied Psychology 99, Moderated Mediation Study,\u201d Journal of Applied Journal of\u00a0Applied Psychology 91, no. 5 (2006): no.\u00a05 (2014): 988\u201399. Psychology 93, no. 5 (2008): 945\u201358. 1037\u201352; S. Reicher and S. A. Haslam, 39T. Masson and I. Fritsche, \u201cAdherence to 49M. S. Hagger, P. Rentzelas, and N. K. D. \u201cRethinking the Psychology of Tyranny: The Climate Change-Related Ingroup Norms: Do Chatzisrantis, \u201cEffects of Individualist and Col- BBC Prison Study,\u201d British Journal of Social Dimensions of Group Identification Matter?\u201d lectivist Group Norms and Choice on Intrinsic Psychology 45, no. 1 (2006): 1\u201340; and P. G. European Journal of Social Psychology 44, no. 5 Motivation.\u201d Zimbardo, \u201cOn Rethinking the Psychology (2014): 455\u201365. 50J. Dippong and W. Kalkhoff, \u201cPredicting of Tyranny: The BBC Prison Study,\u201d British 40See R. J. Bennett and S. L. Robinson, Performance Expectations from Affective Im- Journal of Social Psychology 45, no. 1 (2006): \u201cThe Past, Present, and Future of Workplace pressions: Linking Affect Control Theory and 47\u201353. Deviance,\u201d in J. Greenberg (ed.), Organiza- Status Characteristics Theory,\u201d Social Science 28Y. Huang, K. M. Kendrick, and R. Yu, tional Behavior: The State of the Science, 2nd ed. Research 50 (2015): 1\u201314; and A. E. Randel, \u201cConformity to the Opinions of Other People (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2003), 237\u201371; and C. L. Chay-Hoon, and P. C. Earley, \u201cIt\u2019s Not Just Lasts for No More Than 3 Days,\u201d Psychological M. Berry, D. S. Ones, and P. R. Sackett, \u201cInter- about Differences: An Integration of Role Science 25, no. 7 (2014): 1388\u201393. personal Deviance, Organizational Deviance, Identity Theory and Status Characteristics 29M. S. Hagger, P. Rentzelas, and N. K. D. and Their Common Correlates: A Review and Theory,\u201d in M. C. T. Hunt (ed.), Research on Chatzisrantis, \u201cEffects of Individualist and Meta-Analysis,\u201d Journal of Applied Psychology 92, Managing Groups and Teams (2005), 23\u201342. Collectivist Group Norms and Choice on no. 2 (2007): 410\u201324. 51A. E. Randel, L. Chay-Hoon, and P. C. Intrinsic Motivation,\u201d Motivation and Emotion 41M. A. Baysinger, K. T. Scherer, and Earley, \u201cIt\u2019s Not Just about Differences: An 38, no.\u00a02 (2014): 215\u201323; and M. G. Ehrhart J.\u00a0M. LeBreton, \u201cExploring the Disruptive Integration of Role Identity Theory and Status and S.\u00a0E. Naumann, \u201cOrganizational Citizen- Effects of Psychopathy and Aggression on Characteristics Theory.\u201d ship Behavior in Work Groups: A Group Group Processes and Group Effectiveness,\u201d 52R. R. Callister and J. A. Wall Jr., \u201cConflict Norms Approach,\u201d Journal of Applied Psychology Journal\u00a0of Applied Psychology 99, no. 1 (2014): across Organizational Boundaries: Managed (December 2004): 960\u201374. 48\u201365. Care Organizations versus Health Care 30E. Delvaux, N. Vanbeselaere, and B. Mes- 42T. C. Reich and M. S. Hershcovis, \u201cObserv- Providers,\u201d Journal of Applied Psychology 86, quita, \u201cDynamic Interplay between Norms ing Workplace Incivility,\u201d Journal of Applied no. 4 (2001): 754\u201363; and P. Chattopadhyay, and Experiences of Anger and Gratitude Psychology 100, no. 1 (2015): 203\u201315; and W. H. Glick, and G. P. Huber, \u201cOrganizational in Groups,\u201d Small Group Research 46, no. 3 Z. E. Zhou, Y. Yan, X. X. Che, and L. L. Meier, Actions in Response to Threats and Oppor- (2015): 300\u201323. \u201cEffect of Workplace Incivility on End-of-Work tunities,\u201d Academy of Management Journal 44, 31R. B. Cialdini and N. J. Goldstein, \u201cSocial Negative Affect: Examining Individual and no.\u00a05 (2001): 937\u201355. Influence: Compliance and Conformity,\u201d Organizational Moderators in a Daily Diary 53P. F. Hewlin, \u201cWearing the Cloak: Anteced- Annual Review of Psychology 55 (2004): Study,\u201d Journal of Occupational Health Psychology ents and Consequences of Creating Facades 591\u2013621. 20, no. 1 (2015): 117\u201330. of Conformity,\u201d Journal of Applied Psychology 94, 32P. Kundu and D. D. Cummins, \u201cMorality 43See C. Pearson, L. M. Andersson, and C. L. no. 3 (2009): 727\u201341. and Conformity: The Asch Paradigm Applied Porath, \u201cWorkplace Incivility,\u201d in S. Fox and 54B. Groysberg, J. T. Polzer, and H. A. to Moral Decisions,\u201d Social Influence 8, no. 4 P. E. Spector (eds.), Counterproductive Work Elfenbein, \u201cToo Many Cooks Spoil the Broth: (2013): 268\u201379. Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets How High-Status Individuals Decrease Group 33Ibid. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Effectiveness,\u201d Organization Science (May\u2013June 34R. A. Griggs, \u201cThe Disappearance of Inde- Association, 2005), 177\u2013200. 2011): 722\u201337. pendence in Textbook Coverage of Asch\u2019s 44S. Lim, L. M. Cortina, and V. J. Magley, 55C. Bendersky and N. P. Shah, \u201cThe Cost of Social Pressure Experiments,\u201d Teaching of \u201cPersonal and Workgroup Incivility: Impact Status Enhancement: Performance Effects of Psychology 42, no. 2 (2015): 137\u201342. on Work and Health Outcomes,\u201d Journal of Individuals\u2019 Status Mobility in Task Groups,\u201d 35S. Sansfacon and C. E. Amiot, \u201cThe Impact Applied Psychology 93, no. 1 (2008): 95\u2013107. Organization Science 23, no. 2 (2012): 308\u201322. of Group Norms and Behavioral Congruence 45M. S. Christian and A. P. J. Ellis, \u201cExamining 56B. Groysberg, J. T. Polzer, and H. A. on the Internalization of an Illegal Download- the Effects of Sleep Deprivation on Work- Elfenbein, \u201cToo Many Cooks Spoil the Broth: ing Behavior,\u201d Group Dynamics-Theory Research place Deviance: A Self-Regulatory Perspec- How High-Status Individuals Decrease Group and Practice 18, no. 2 (2014): 174\u201388; and tive,\u201d Academy of Management Journal 54, no. 5 Effectiveness,\u201d Organization Science 22, no. 3 L. Rosh, L. R. Offermann, and R. Van Diest, (2011): 913\u201334. (2011): 722\u201337. \u201cToo Close for Comfort? Distinguishing 46Robinson and O\u2019Leary-Kelly, \u201cMonkey See, 57A. M. Christie and J. Barling, \u201cBeyond Sta- between Team Intimacy and Team Cohesion,\u201d Monkey Do\u201d; and T. M. Glomb and H. Liao, tus: Relating Status Inequality to Performance Human Resource Management Review (June \u201cInterpersonal Aggression in Workgroups: and Health in Teams,\u201d Journal of Applied 2012): 116\u201327. Social Influence, Reciprocal, and Individual Psychology 95, no. 5 (2010): 920\u201334; and","346 PART 3 The Group L. H. Nishii and D. M. Mayer, \u201cDo Inclusive chosemantics of Free Riding: Dissecting the Human Decision Processes 114, no. 1 (2011): Leaders Help to Reduce Turnover in Diverse Architecture of a Moral Concept,\u201d Journal 25\u201336; and G. Park and R. P. DeShon, \u201cA Groups? The Moderating Role of Leader- of Personality and Social Psychology 102, no. 6 Multilevel Model of Minority Opinion Expres- Member Exchange in the Diversity to Turn- (2012): 1252\u201370. sion and Team Decision-Making Effective- over Relationship,\u201d Journal of Applied Psychology 66C. Rubino, D. R. Avery, S. D. Volpone, et al., ness,\u201d Journal of Applied Psychology 95, no. 5 94, no. 6 (2009): 1412\u201326. \u201cDoes Teaming Obscure Low Performance? (2010): 824\u201333. 58V. Venkataramani, S. G. Green, and D. J. Exploring the Temporal Effects of Team Per- 76J. S. Chun and J. N. Choi, \u201cMembers\u2019 Schleicher, \u201cWell-Connected Leaders: The formance Diversity,\u201d Human Performance 27, Needs, Intragroup Conflict, and Group Impact of Leaders\u2019 Social Network Ties on no. 5 (2014): 416\u201334. Performance,\u201d Journal of Applied Psychology 99, LMX and Members\u2019 Work Attitudes,\u201d Journal 67D. L. Smrt and S. J. Karau, \u201cProtestant no. 3 (2014): 437\u201350. of Applied Psychology 95, no. 6 (2010): 1071\u201384. Work Ethic Moderates Social Loafing,\u201d Group 77M. Rigoglioso, \u201cDiverse Backgrounds 59H. van Dijk and M. L. van Engen, \u201cA Status Dynamics-Theory Research and Practice (Septem- and Personalities Can Strengthen Groups,\u201d Perspective on the Consequences of Work ber 2011): 267\u201374. Stanford Knowledgebase, August 15, 2006, www Group Diversity,\u201d Journal of Occupational and 68M. C. Schippers, \u201cSocial Loafing Tendencies .stanford.edu\/group\/knowledgebase\/. Organizational Psychology (June 2013): 223\u201341. and Team Performance: The Compensating 78K. W. Phillips and D. L. Loyd, \u201cWhen 60Based on J. B. Pryor, G. D. Reeder, and A. Effect of Agreeableness and Conscientious- Surface and Deep-Level Diversity Collide: The E. Monroe, \u201cThe Infection of Bad Company: ness,\u201d Academy of Management Learning & Effects on Dissenting Group Members,\u201d Orga- Stigma by Association,\u201d Journal of Personal- Education 13, no. 1 (2014): 62\u201381. nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes ity and Social Psychology. 102, no. 2 (2012): 69A. Gunnthorsdottir and A. Rapoport, \u201cEm- 99 (2006): 143\u201360; and S. R. Sommers, \u201cOn 224\u201341; E. Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the Man- bedding Social Dilemmas in Intergroup Com- Racial Diversity and Group Decision Mak- agement of Spoiled Identity (Touchstone Digital, petition Reduces Free-Riding,\u201d Organizational ing: Identifying Multiple Effects of Racial 2009); and M. R. Hebl, and L. M. Mannix, Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 Composition on Jury Deliberations,\u201d Journal \u201cThe Weight of Obesity in Evaluating Others: (2006): 184\u201399; and E. M. Stark, J. D. Shaw, of Personality and Social Psychology (April 2006): A Mere Proximity Effect,\u201d Personality and Social and M. K. Duffy, \u201cPreference for Group Work, 597\u2013612. Psychology Bulletin 29 (2003): 28\u201338. Winning Orientation, and Social Loafing 79J. S. Chun and J. N. Choi, \u201cMembers\u2019 Needs, 61M. Cikara and J. J. Van Bavel, \u201cThe Neuro- Behavior in Groups,\u201d Group and Organization Intragroup Conflict, and Group Perfor- science of Intergroup Relations: An Integra- Management 32, no. 6 (2007): 699\u2013723. mance.\u201d tive Review,\u201d Perspectives on Psychological Science 70R. B. Lount, Jr. and S. L. Wilk, \u201cWorking 80E. Mannix and M. A. Neale, \u201cWhat Dif- 9, no. 3 (2014): 245\u201374. Harder or Hardly Working? Posting Perfor- ferences Make a Difference? The Promise 62M. Rubin, C. Badea, and J. Jetten, \u201cLow Sta- mance Eliminates Social Loafing and Pro- and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organiza- tus Groups Show In-Group Favoritism to Com- motes Social Laboring in Workgroups.\u201d tions,\u201d Psychological Science in the Public Interest pensate for Their Low Status and Compete for 71A. Gunnthorsdottir and A. Rapoport, (October 2005): 31\u201355. Higher Status,\u201d Group Processes & Intergroup \u201cEmbedding Social Dilemmas in Intergroup 81E. P. Apfelbaum, K. W. Phillips, and Relations 17, no. 5 (2014): 563\u201376. Competition Reduces Free-Riding;\u201d and E. M. J. A. Richeson, \u201cRethinking the Baseline in 63C. L. Wilkins, J. D. Wellman, L. G. Babbitt, Stark, J. D. Shaw, and M. K. Duffy, \u201cPreference Diversity Research: Should We Be Explaining N. R. Toosi, and K. D. Schad, \u201cYou Can Win for Group Work, Winning Orientation, and the Effects of Homogeneity?\u201d Perspectives on but I Can\u2019t Lose: Bias against High-Status Social Loafing Behavior in Groups.\u201d Psychological Science 9, no. 3 (2014): 235\u201344. Groups Increases Their Zero-Sum Beliefs 72L. L. Greer, \u201cGroup Cohesion: Then and 82See M. B. Thatcher and P. C. Patel, \u201cGroup about Discrimination,\u201d Journal of Experimental Now,\u201d Small Group Research (December 2012): Faultlines: A Review, Integration, and Guide Social Psychology 57 (2014): 1\u201314. 655\u201361. to Future Research,\u201d Journal of Management 38, 64R. B. Lount, Jr. and S. L. Wilk, \u201cWorking 73D. S. Staples and L. Zhao, \u201cThe Effects of no. 4 (2012): 969\u20131009. Harder or Hardly Working? Posting Perfor- Cultural Diversity in Virtual Teams Versus 83K. Bezrukova, S. M. B. Thatcher, K. A. Jehn, mance Eliminates Social Loafing and Pro- Face-to-Face Teams,\u201d Group Decision and Nego- and C. S. Spell, \u201cThe Effects of Alignments: motes Social Laboring in Workgroups,\u201d Man- tiation (July 2006): 389\u2013406. Examining Group Faultlines, Organizational agement Science 60, no. 5 (2014): 1098\u2013106; 74N. Chi, Y. Huang, and S. Lin, \u201cA Double- Cultures, and Performance,\u201d Journal of Applied S. M. Murphy, S. J. Wayne, R. C. Liden, and Edged Sword? Exploring the Curvilinear Psychology 97, no. 1 (2012): 77\u201392. B. Erdogan, \u201cUnderstanding Social Loafing: Relationship between Organizational Tenure 84R. Rico, M. Sanchez-Manzanares, M. Antino, The Role of Justice Perceptions and Exchange Diversity and Team Innovation: The Moderat- and D. Lau, \u201cBridging Team Faultlines by Relationships,\u201d Human Relations (January ing Role of Team-Oriented HR Practices,\u201d Combining Task Role Assignment and Goal 2003): 61\u201384; and R. C. Liden, S. J. Wayne, R. Group and Organization Management 34, no. 6 Structure Strategies,\u201d Journal of Applied Psychol- A. Jaworski, and N. Bennett, \u201cSocial Loafing: (2009): 698\u2013726. ogy 97, no. 2 (2012): 407\u201320. A Field Investigation,\u201d Journal of Management 75K. J. Klein, A. P. Knight, J. C. Ziegert, B. C. 85B. L. Bonner, S. D. Sillito, and M. R. (April 2004): 285\u2013304. Lim, and J. L. Saltz, \u201cWhen Team Members\u2019 Baumann, \u201cCollective Estimation: Accuracy, 65A. W. Delton, L. Cosmides, M. Guemo, Values Differ: The Moderating Role of Team Expertise, and Extroversion as Sources T. E. Robertson, and J. Tooby, \u201cThe Psy- Leadership,\u201d Organizational Behavior and of Intra-Group Influence,\u201d Organizational","Foundations of\u00a0Group Behavior CHAPTER 9 347 Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103 91See N. Richardson Ahlfinger and J. K. Esser, 95See R. P. McGlynn, D. McGurk, V. S. (2007): 121\u201333. \u201cTesting the Groupthink Model: Effects of Effland, N. L. Johll, and D. J. Harding, 86J. E. Kammer, W. Gaissmaier, T. Reimer, and Promotional Leadership and Conformity \u201cBrainstorming and Task Performance in C. C. Schermuly, \u201cThe Adaptive Use of Recog- Predisposition,\u201d Social Behavior & Personality Groups Constrained by Evidence,\u201d Organiza- nition in Group Decision Making,\u201d Cognitive 29, no. 1 (2001): 31\u201341; and S. Schultz-Hardt, tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes Science 38, no. 5 (2014): 911\u201342. F. C. Brodbeck, A. Mojzisch, R. Kerschreiter, (January 2004): 75\u201387; and R. C. Litchfield, 87J. S. Chun and J. N. Choi, \u201cMembers\u2019 Needs, and D. Frey, \u201cGroup Decision Making in Hid- \u201cBrainstorming Reconsidered: A Goal-Based Intragroup Conflict, and Group Perfor- den Profile Situations: Dissent as a Facilitator View,\u201d Academy of Management Review 33, no. 3 mance.\u201d for Decision Quality,\u201d Journal of Personality and (2008): 649\u201368. 88G. Park and R. P. DeShon, \u201cA Multilevel Social Psychology 91, no. 6 (2006): 1080\u201393. 96N. L. Kerr and R. S. Tindale, \u201cGroup Perfor- Model of Minority Opinion Expression and 92See I. Yaniv, \u201cGroup Diversity and Decision mance and Decision-Making,\u201d Annual Review Team Decision-Making Effectiveness,\u201d Journal Quality: Amplification and Attenuation of the of Psychology 55 (2004): 623\u201355. of Applied Psychology 95, no. 5 (2010): 824\u201333. Framing Effect,\u201d International Journal of Fore- 97C. Faure, \u201cBeyond Brainstorming: Effects 89R. Benabou, \u201cGroupthink: Collective Delu- casting (January\u2013March 2011): 41\u201349. of Different Group Procedures on Selection sions in Organizations and Markets,\u201d Review of 93M. P. Brady and S. Y. Wu, \u201cThe Aggregation of Ideas and Satisfaction with the Process,\u201d Economic Studies (April 2013): 429\u201362. of Preferences in Groups: Identity, Respon- Journal of Creative Behavior 38 (2004): 13\u201334. 90J. A. Goncalo, E. Polman, and C. Maslach, sibility, and Polarization,\u201d Journal of Economic 98P. L. Perrewe, K. L. Zellars, G. R. Ferris, A. \u201cCan Confidence Come Too Soon? Collective Psychology 31, no. 6 (2010): 950\u201363. M. Rossi, C. J. Kacmar, and D. A. Ralston, Efficacy, Conflict, and Group Performance 94Z. Krizan and R. S. Baron, \u201cGroup Polariza- \u201cNeutralizing Job Stressors: Political Skill as an over Time,\u201d Organizational Behavior and tion and Choice-Dilemmas: How Important Is Antidote to the Dysfunctional Consequences Human Decision Processes 113, no. 1 (2010): Self-Categorization?\u201d European Journal of Social of Role Conflict,\u201d Academy of Management 13\u201324. Psychology 37, no. 1 (2007): 191\u2013201. Journal (February 2004): 141\u201352."]