Group Behaviour: Human relations at work: social dimensions

1. Group Behaviour: Human relations at work: social dimensions

3. Groups and job design social technical systems semi-autonomous work groups cell technology project management virtual, distributed teams tele-working team working and development the rise of the team imperative & idealised models "a group with a strong sense of esprit de corps" high task interdependence co-ordination = mutual adjustment Empowerment over control

4. Considerations Social Process shared identity; affiliation, self-esteem, recognition - fundamental need - psychological awareness Managerial, functional & task perspectives Work + interact in groups. Aware of each other. See selves as a group member. Goal orientation & action. Perform: get work done, responsibility, command structures, created for a function. Formal - Informal selected into membership. In, out + at the margin voluntary, membership by recognition & consent non-subscribers to formal goals? Different purposes - social & psych. permanent or temp. (flexible, often matrix). Network? sub-structures & cultures within the formal bonding - inter-dependencies and influence. Gender issues

5. From theory to practice When is know-how of groups and group dynamics useful? deciding to join or quit a group? selecting people for an existing group? creating a new group & structuring its roles & activities? team building and development? managing a life cycle: immaturity to mature success, then unfreeze/realign & renew. mediating inter-group conflict? evaluating impact of technol. change on a group? developing member awareness of dynamics/interactions adjusting one's own behaviour in a group? seeking to influence a group? assessing group performance?

6. Why 'group' ? Impact on members and others. Advantages of 'formal grouping' complex task not easily done by one stimulate creativity , ideas coordinate, liase, integrate with parts of organisation problem-solving - shared knowing, knowledge?? decisions, commitment, trust promote cohesion - communicate, maintenance, reinforcement

7. Group influences on "my" behaviour socialisation experiences & conformist personality adjust preferences to fit group code family, peer group pressures to belong

8. Social exchange - benefits and costs demonstrate trustworthiness abide by group norms - rules & values regulating how we �should� behave towards each other individual predicts behaviour group (control) - individual can be trusted marginalisation & exclusion unless norms observed initiation & rituals, required behaviours substantial degrees of conformity - social & anti-social groups

9. Hawthorne Studies 1924-1933: Findings Western Electric Co. asked Harvard researchers (Mayo) to examine relationships between work conditions & productivity: rest breaks, length of work day, product methods, pay system, work layout, illumination etc Relay assembly room experiments six women, selected for performance & level of skill Found major output improvements under virtually all conditions, even when original ones reinstated positivistic, expected, (sci-mgt) deterministic relationships between 'factor' and efficiency were not found. Why? led to interview programme & critique of research method Conclusion? The 'experiment' itself became a social system � .. the six individuals became a team and the team gave wholeheartedly and spontaneously to co-operation in the experiment �(Mayo, 1943:73)

10. Questions List three examples of decision-making groups you have experienced? What, in your view, are processes that helped or hindered group problem solving and decision-making?

11. Draw your group membership network

12. Examine group membership network

13. Homan's model of work group behaviour (1950) Context & determinants of small group characteristics

14. Group membership - theories Bales and Slater (1955) Group Leader often one perceived to be most task competent - Task Leader helps to facilitate task behaviours: information-seeking; opinion-giving & seeking and motivating will also have Social Leader often unofficial role addresses group's socio-emotional needs - reconciling differences; encouraging participation; arbitrating

15. �Banana Time� anecdotesJob satisfaction & information interaction Roy (1953) explored Walker and Guest�s (1952) connection between �group� and the �joy of work�. Two months of participant observation Assembly line worker: 'We have a lot of fun & talk all the time If it weren�t for the talking & fooling, you�d go nuts� machine workers doing repetitive, monotonous work Limited wkr-wkr, wkr-boss contact (relative isolation) Find identity & meaning in status, structure & roles emerging from informal activities horseplay, break time drama/cues �banana time�, "in-jokes", coffee-peach-coke-fish-snap times (some of these are not shared but still known by all) a basis for social interplay & counteracting monotony

16. Membership and marginalisation Acceptance of group goals � expected What if group member resists? Listening Seduction Intolerance Attack Isolation Amputation e.g. "Sent to Coventry", scab, whistleblower uncovering the Bristol scandal - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/health/2001/the_bristol_babies_inquiry/default.stm Google search bristol hearings babies also�.. Goffman (Presentation of Self in Everyday Life) Glaser on whistler blowers

17. Comfort in numbers � risky and cautious shift Groups may take more risky decisions than individuals (risky shift) or show the opposite tendency (cautious shift) Goethals & Darley (1977) suggest risky shift occurs because (a) diffusion of responsibility (b) social comparison processes (i.e. group members want to present themselves in the best light) explain why � for example - riskier business decisions are made in a group) than an individual alone

18. Research studies on group conformity Asch 1951 six member experimenter group randomly selected. Five 'plants' briefed to reach a unanimous incorrect verdict. One 'true' subject Agree the line that most closely matches the length of line A. 33% of true subjects agreed publicly with plants' incorrect judgement. When an ally was planted in the group - resistance continued

19. Research studies on group conformity Sherif 1936 darkened room, subjects asked to track a spot of light on a screen. Report up, down, diagonal movement autokinetic effects distort perception so expect wide initial differences in what individuals report group discussion before making a judgement - they tended to report the same direction of movement bigger group - stronger conformity (non-conformists find it harder to resist and battle)

20. Research studies on group conformity Milgram investigation of effects of punishment on learning 1963 volunteers + unseen subject (stooge) in another room (mic. link) dial to regulate electric shock to unseen subject if wrong answer given. Wrong answer - increase the voltage. dial labelled: light shock <----> danger/extreme intensity stooge acting distress and pain - no shock many said "No, want to stop" where begged to end Experimenter says "no problem, ignore, keep increasing the volts" Despite reluctance most subjects did as instructed Conclusion? tendency to obey instructions of authority figure

21. Exercise Reflect on an informal group of which you are a member (work or college) What rules or expectations of required behaviour has the group seemingly evolved? What is the evidence that the norms exist? What happens if someone breaks the rules? How do members - consciously or inadvertently - ensure that a rule-breaker conforms in future?

22. Group formation and development Exceptions e.g. airline cabin crew new members do not need to to go thru. the stages clear roles/responsibilities group within 10 minutes (Ginnett 1990)

23. Tele-working and Virtual Groups How may the Tuckman (becoming effective as a unit) & Homans descriptive models (context affecting group characteristics) assist our understanding and management of "distributed, networked (virtual, teleworking) groups that use information communication technologies to support their functioning?

24. Analysing group structure & process Role structure expectations & obligations to act in specific ways functional & personal trading performances (Goffman 1971) Role set and member relations (formal & informal) expectations How I see you & you see me altercations & negotiation (McCall & Simmons 1966) - casting, negotiation & firming up inappropriate behaviour: misunderstandings, ambiguities, conflicts Status structures Leadership - task & maintenance (socio-emotive) Bales 1950 Guardians, scouts, ambassadors In-crowds & the marginalised

25. Group norms (Feldman 1984) Code to guide important behaviour predictability - no need to constantly re-negotiate express central attitudes, values and beliefs signal group self-image to self & others beyond boundary aids survival - majority subscriptions, threats to group integrity, controlling abnormal behaviour Norms about Ends - what we want to do, consensus about what is success and failure Means - acceptable behaviour for achieving ends Limits e.g. limits on flexibility, what is acceptable, degree of coincidence between group & organisational norms

26. Group cohesion Attractiveness to members & motivation to stay / quit Member similarity - alike in objectives attitudes, values. Satisfaction from affiliation. Dissimilar - factions & sub-groups Past success - "we are a winning team". Failures - lower motivation & escapees Frequency of interaction - enhance common interests & shared perceptions High turnover - lower cohesion, fewer have shared history or socialised Size - some are strangers or anonymous Membership criteria - in group, out group, exclusivity Dominance by focal group figures limits sharing of decisions, reduces sense of commitment & ownership

27. Cohesion: environmental & organisational factors Environmental Group dispersal & isolation Perceived external threats - bond together Favourable self-evaluations - prestige & status in belonging Rewards - collective versus individual (Hansen 1997) Organisational (a la Homans) Assumptions & practices of managers Leadership Formal organisation Punishments & rewards

28. Outcomes of Group Cohesiveness Assume stable, accepted predictable structure of roles & relationships Advantages Better at meeting objectives with less resource & effort Higher degree of job satisfaction & morale Trust, interpersonal problems resolved, fewer squabbles Lower absenteeism & leavers Disadvantages? Productivity - do organisational & group goals coincide Backlash to mgt. if expectations seen as unreasonable Status quo is comfortable - complacency &inwardness Higher potential for inter-group conflict - parochialism (Bion 1973)

29. Individual vs. collective group decision-making Is a group decision better than an individual one? Mixed conclusions - time of the essence Some evidence that cohesive groups prone to impaired decision processes Levelling - joint working usually results in better decisions but not as good as best individual working alone (Miner 1984) Everyone involved - but time needed for complex, ambiguous problems. Implementation requires all accept (Bottger & Yetton 1988) More likely to produce accurate, workable decisions (Michaelsen et al 1989)

30. How to evaluate group effectiveness? Task/performance criteria Member satisfaction criteria Analysis of group dynamicsfocus on interactions within/between groups, stable or unstable arrangements resulting from such interactions Who will do this research? Quantitative or Qualitative research methodologies? Abstracted empiricism Interpretive approaches (actor & researcher interpretation)

31. Task, individual and group interplays Examine, define, evaluate relationships Individual to group & task Manager to group & task Group to organisation & task

32. Profiling group dynamics: Moreno, Bales, Rackham et al Socio-gram &scripting methods mapping of perception & liking structures Interaction analysis - mapping exchanges Task Group maintenance constructive & negative communications script analysis & the "Games People play" (Transactional Analysis - Eric Berne)

33. Behaviour Analysis - 1

34. Behaviour Analysis - 2

35. Woodcock on an effective team (nomothetic & normative) 1.team members share understanding of purpose, goals, direction 2.Openness and confrontation. 3.Support & trust. 4.Co-operation & conflict. 5.Sound procedures. 6.Appropriate Leadership. 7.Regular Review 8.Individual development. 9.Sound inter-group relations.

36. Meredith Belbin: Top Manager Team roles Implementor Coordinator Shaper Plant Resource investigator Monitor-evaluator Team worker Completer-finisher Specialist

37. In what ways do groups become dysfunctional? Why can interactions between groups in organisations become so difficult? How is group conflict manifested? Friendly encounters vs. Pitch battles Individual dislikes Group rivalry & stereotyping Parochialism Blame culture Guerrilla warfare (covert) Passive, dull resistance 'Mutual admiration society� and  distorted decision-making

38. Group think (Janis 1972) Illusion of invulnerability Assumptions of morality Realisations Stereotyping Self-censorship Illusions of unanimity Mind-guarding Direct pressure

39. Group polarisation - Risky shift Diffusion of responsibilitycannot point finger of blame Valuing riskmacho, adventurous, social prestige Familiarisation discussion reduces perception of risk Prominence/leadership effectshigh talkers - often those with most influence. Suggestions sometimes adopted without full consideration

40. Reading BOLA The managerial problem, Communication and Teams - initial reading only. For Woodcock, Belbin, Groupthink, Risky shift http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~bustcfj/bola/communications/what2lookfor.html F&R '99 Ch7

41. In summary Human relations school � stress social aspects of work important to effectiveness People will create informal social structure dynamic in the most formal of work settings display designated and emergent roles including task and social leaders Managers inherit & create work groups Groups can formally & informally include or kick-out �maverick� members The group can be a powerful force that may filter & distort information despite contrary evidence GroupThinking those we accuse of GroupThink Groups may take riskier (or more cautious) decisions than individuals might.