GROUP PERFORMANCE

1. GROUP PERFORMANCE • INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE IN A SOCIAL SETTING • (SPEECH, PIANO RECITAL, TYPING) • INTERACTIVE GROUP PERFORMANCE • (PIT CREW, TUG OF WAR, VOLLEYBALL, McDONALDS) • INTERACTIVE GROUP PERF INVOLVES ELEMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE

2. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE IN A SOCIAL SETTING • SOCIAL FACILITATION • TRIPLET STUDY • SOCIAL IMPAIRMENT • STAGE FRIGHT, BAD GOLFER • EASY OR WELL-LEARNED TASKS ARE FACILITATED • INHIBITION OCCURS FOR NEW OR DIFFICULT TASKS

3. FACILITATION & IMPAIRMENT • GOOD & BAD POOL PLAYERS • SKILLED VS BEGINNING TYPIST • NEW VS WELL PRACTICED MEMORY TASK

4. AROUSAL-DRIVE MODEL

5. EXPLANATIONS FOR FACILITATION-IMPAIRMENT • AROUSAL-DRIVE MODEL • EVALUATION APPREHENSION • DISTRACTION-CONFLICT • MULTIPLE PROCESS MODELS

6. Paulus Model

7. INTERACTIVE GROUP PERFORMANCE • STEINER • ACTUAL = POTENTIAL - PROCESSPROD. PROD. LOSSES

8. POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY • MEMBERS (KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS) • TASK • DETERMINES WHICH KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS ARE RELEVANT • DETERMINES HOW INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CAN BE COMBINED • SUPPORT (SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, INFORMATION, ETC.)

9. Size and Potential Productivity Additive Task Group Size

10. Size and Potential Productivity Disjunctive Task Group Size

11. Group Composition • “Effective groups are composed of effective people>” (Driskell, et al., 1987) • “A group’s composition is the most important condition affecting the amount of knowledge and skill members apply to their task.” (Hackman, 1987) • Members determine the extent to which the group can meet task demands.

12. Member Ability • Global MeasuresTank Crews r = .12 to .23 (global aptitude)Survey Crews r = .09 (SAT)Bank Mgt. Teams r = .42 (educational level) • Task-specific MeasuresSurvival Tests r = .41 to .54Physical Skills per r = .66, maze r = .63Tennis Doubles r = .70 to .80

13. TeamworkKnowledge & Skills • Interpersonal KSAs • Conflict Resolution • Collaborative Problem-Solving • Communication • Self-Management KSAs • Goal Setting/ Performance Management • Planning & Task Coordination

14. Group Composition • Task Relevant Diversity of Knowledge & Skills May Affect Performance • Can Lead to More or Less Potential Depending on the Nature of the Task • Can Affect Group Processes and the Importance of Utilizing Member Expertise

15. Task Types & Task-relevant Diversity • Additive: irrelevant • Divisible: less redundancy. HML = 64; MMM = 48correct answers to IQ questions. Bank Management Teams • Disjunctive: less redundancy. Horse trading problem: 1 solver & 1 non-solver 72% correct. • Conjunctive: hurts performance. Tank Crew

16. Groups Have Many Advantages • More Resources (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities) • More Perspectives • More Commitment / Acceptance • But groups usually fail to fully reach potential.

17. Ringelmann Rope Pull Potential Actual Group Size

18. Divisible Task • A team solving a complex problem that required the solution of five very different sub-problems. • Typical Member 4% • Best Member 15% • Team Performance 64% • Team Potential 86% • A group can do well, but still fail to reach its potential.

19. PROCESS LOSSES • SOCIAL LOAFING • COORDINATION LOSSES • FAULTY STRATEGIES • FAILURE TO USE EXPERTISE

20. Process Losses Group Size

21. MOTIVATIONAL & COORDINATION LOSSES NOISE PER PERSON POTENTIAL REDUCED EFFORT PSEUDOGROUP COORDINATION LOSS ACTUAL

22. MOTIVATION & COORDINATION LOSSES POTENTIAL PSEUDOGROUP MOT. LOSS COR. LOSS ACTUAL

23. Expectancy Theory & Social Loafing • Expectancy X Instrumentality X Valence • Effort Performance • Performance Outcome • Outcome Valence • These links are weaker on group tasks.

24. Reducing Social Loafing • Evaluation Potential • Task Meaningfulness or Importance • Cohesion • Group-Level Comparison Standards • Uniqueness of Personal Contribution • Task Difficulty • Smaller Group Size • Females Loaf Less • Eastern Cultures Loaf Less

25. Hackman’s Model of Group Effectiveness Material Resources Organizational Context Process Criteria Group Effectiveness Group Design Group Synergy

26. Group Synergy (Teamwork) • Collective Efficacy • Interacting Effectively, Monitoring, Load Balancing, • Shared Mental Model: Common Understanding of of Task (Cue-Strategy Associations) • Transactive Memory: Shared Knowledge of Other Member’s Specific Strengths, Weaknesses, Preferences, Roles

27. Shared Mental Model (Mathieu, et al., 2000 Flight Mission Study Shared Task Mental Model .31 .49 Group Processes Group Performance Shared Team Mental Model .26

28. Transactive Memory • Shared Understanding of Who Knows What • Married Couples Were Better Than Random Pairs at Learning Material Across Several Categories • When Only One Partner Had Correct Answer, Intact Couples Performed Better Than Random Pairs.

29. Transactive Memory(Moreland Radio Assembly Teams) • Individual Training, Scrambled Team Training, Intact Team Training • Worked as a Group to Assemble Radio • Intact Group Training Resulted in Better Transactive Memory ((Specialization, Coordination, Cooperation, Trust, Less Confusion) • Transactive Memory Led to Better Performance (Recall & Errors)

30. Group Problem Solving

31. Common Process Problems • Uneven Participation • Little Effort to Draw Out Quiet Members • Talking May Depend on Factors Other Than Expertise • Dominance • Confidence • Status • Little Discussion of Unique Information

32. Unequal Participation Percent of Talking

33. Types of Task Comments

34. Talking Leads to Influence Talking Perceived Influence Expertise

35. Talking Leads to Influence Talking Perceived Influence Expertise But Talking Doesn’t Always Reflect Knowledge Dominance Confidence Talking Expertise

36. Status Affects Talking & Influence

37. Information Discussed

38. Other Process Problems • Jumping Right In: Failure to examine the problem, and plan team processes. • Few Options Are Examined Snowball Effect: Once an idea gets sufficient support it prevents other ideas from getting fair consideration. • Political Vs. Rational: Emphasizing the source of an idea rather than its merits.

39. Other Process Problems • Straying Off Topic: Often discussion shifts to unrelated matters and must be redirected. • Faulty Information or Logic: Often team members supply flawed information, misinterpret information, or make inferences that don’t follow from the available information. • Failure to Disagree: In some teams, members are reluctant to discuss their reservations or dissenting views.

40. Other Process Problems • Promotional Leadership: Once a leader or other powerful person supports a position, it stifles dissent and support for other positions. • Superficial Action Planning: Failure to assign responsibilities and to develop contingency plans.

41. GROUP POLARIZATION • GROUP DECISIONS AREN’T ALWAYS MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, COMPROMISE DECISIONS • IF GROUP MEMBERS HAVE AN INITIAL LEANING, THEN GROUP DECISION MAY BE IN THE SAME DIRECTION, BUT MORE EXTREME • CHANGE JOBS, GET MARRIED, EMPLOYEE EVALUATION

42. GROUP POLARIZATION GROUP GROUP AVG AVG I I I i i i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEUTRAL

43. GROUP POLARIZATION GROUP AVG GROUP GROUP AVG AVG I I I i i i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEUTRAL

44. GROUPTHINK • Premature Concurrence-Seeking • Interferes With Effective Group Decisions

45. Proposed Causes of Groupthink • Cohesion • Procedural & Structural Faults • Provocative Situation

46. GROUPTHINK DIRECTIVE LEADER INSULATION UNSYSTEMATIC APPROACH STRUCTURAL & PROCEDURAL FAULTS PREMATURE CONCURRENCE SEEKING OVERESTIMATION OF THE GROUP CLOSED MINDEDNESS UNIFORMITY PRESSURE SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK INCOMPLETE SURVEY OF OBJECTIVES & OPTIONS POOR INFO SEARCH FAILURE TO REAPPRAISE NO CONTINGENCY PLANS SYMPTOMS OF DEFECTIVE DECISION MAKING

47. Symptoms of Groupthink • Overestimation of Group • Illusions of invulnerability • Illusions of Morality • Closed Mindedness • Collective Rationalization • Stereotyping Outgroups • Uniformity Pressure • Direct Pressure • Self-Censorship • Mindguards • Illusions of Unanimity

48. Decision Processes & Outcomes(Foreign Policy)

49. Use a Problem-Solving Approach to Guide Discussion • Orientation (define problem & processes) • Idea Generation • Evaluation of Alternatives (both quality & acceptance) • Choice • Action Planning

50. Advantages Disadvantages Two Column Method: For Each of the Most Serious Alternatives