Leading Problem Solving Groups

1. Leading Problem Solving Groups • How Well Did Your Group Do? • Better than the best individual score • Better than the average individual score • Better that the lowest individual score • Type of Problem–has a known solution that can checked.

2. Explaining Group ProductivitySteiner’s Model • Actual Performance = Potential Performance – Loss Due To Faulty Process

3. Definitions • Actual Performance = What the group accomplishes. Defined by the task • Potential Productivity = What the group can accomplish based on members’ skills and abilities and match with task.

4. Process - steps taken by the group to accomplish the task. • Process Loss-the extent that the actual productivity is less than the potential productivity (best individual member of the team) • Process Gain- the extent that the actual productivity is better than the potential productivity (best individual member of the team)

5. Types Of Process Loss Variables • Possible Ambient factors - mere presence of other people • Distraction - pay attention to non-problem aspects of the situation • Cognitive Interference - statements of others hurt/interfere with our thought processes • Evaluation Apprehension - others are a natural audience, leads to inhibition • Communication Requirements - elaboration/defense required in presenting ideas to others

6. Process Losses Due to Inadequate Problem Solving Techniques • Inadequate matching of task demands and members skills and abilities • Inadequate search behavior • Inadequate evaluation of ideas - premature closure • Lack of separation of idea generation and idea evaluation phases

7. Process Losses Due to Faulty Interpersonal Interaction • Cases Based On • Personality Conflict • Lack of Trust • Negative Group Identity • Biases Assessments-Faulty First Impressions • Lack of Contract-Goals, Norms • Unrealistic Impressions • Individualistic Behavior

8. Process Losses Due to Lack of Group Member Motivation • Reasons • Low task involvement: social loafing, free riding (Lack of Identifiability, Rewards Without Effort) • Issue Not Important • No One Is Listening (Disingenuous Voice) • Belief That Other Have More Expertise

9. Process Loss Due To Structural Variables:Group Size • Typically assumed to be between 5-8 members.

10. Impact of Increasing Team Size: • Increases in differences in participation rates among members between high and low participators.

11. Increase in directive leadership • Formalization of interaction • Increase in propensity to loaf

12. Decrease in satisfaction with the group (processes, membership)

13. Productivity increases at a smaller rate for each additional group member.

14. Size and Performance

15. Social Loafing and Free Riding:Motivation Loss In Groups • The tendency for group members to exert less individual effort as the size of the group increases. Less effort found on: • Performance Task: A type of group task in which the coordinated efforts of several people are added together to form the group’s product • Adding performance of multiple people to compute department sales. --Cognitive Tasks: Thinking of large number of solutions to a problem when working in a group—Brainstorming in a group --Perceptual Tasks: Number of people watching a radar screen for hostile planes --Problem Solving Tasks: Evaluation of a problem and generating a solution. Where to locate the new plant.

16. Antecedents of Social Loafing:Group Size

17. Free Riding—A person can receive the benefits of being in a team without exerting the effort. • A members of project group does not contribute but receives the same grade as the other members of the team, contributions to KERA. • On a disjunctive task-performance is determined by the best member of the team, other people free ride, example, expertise of team members well known, low expertise loaf. • On a conjunctive task, performance is determined by the low ability or skill member, people with more expertise will reduce their effort –interdependent task

18. Why Do People Loaf and Free Ride • Lack of Identifiability: When people share responsibility for a task and team member efforts are pooled together into a single group solution, it may be difficult to identify the contributions of each team member. • Diffusion of responsibility (less personal responsibility) • Rational analysis of cost of one’s effort and potential rewards.

19. Dispensability of Effort: feelings that my efforts are not important to the team, can not make a contribution—my perception or team member’s behavior

20. Other Reasons For Self-limiting Behavior-Low Motivation: Raising The White Flag • Compelling argument that is accepted • Meaningless decision—unimportant decision or disingenuous (no one listening) • Lacking confidence in one’s ability to communicate or accuracy of one judgments • Strong pressures from others to conform-not appear like a deviant, not lose approval • Other team members appear indifferent, unwilling to commitment themselves • Cycle of failure

21. Overcoming Social Loafing, Free Riding, Self Limiting Behavior • Make each team member’s contributions identifiable • Make individuals feel efforts are indispensable-personal responsibility • How do you do this? • Make work tasks more important and interesting • Reward individuals for contributing to their group’s performance

22. Overcoming Social Loafing, Free Riding, and Self-LimitingBehavior • Use group goal setting • Use a contract to bind team members • Increase cohesiveness of group—team members feel a sense of obligation

23. Have the task provide team members with the chance to evaluate their performance or receive some feedback against some standard. • Increase Fairness of Decision of Making Processes • Pay Attention to Size of the Group • Monitor People (Accountable) and the Process (Problems)

24. Social Loafing and Culture • Individualistic Cultures: National groups whose members place a high value on individual accomplishments and personal success. • Collectivistic Cultures: National groups whose members place a high value on shared responsibility and the collective good of all.