SP603 Groups in Action PDF

Preview

Summary

Warning: TT: undefined function: 32 Warning: TT: undefined function: 32SP603 Groups in Action (Week 1-13) WEEK 2: SMALL GROUPS IN ACTION: PRODUCTIVITY, DECISION MAKING AND PERFORMANCE Table of Contents WEEK 3: LEADERSHIP IN GROUPS: A SOCIAL IDENTITY ANALYSIS WEEK 4: UNEXPECTED LEADERS WEEK 6: GROUPS...

Description

Copyright© Diva Wong 2019/20

1

SP603 Groups in Action (Week 1-13) Table of Contents WEEK 2: SMALL GROUPS IN ACTION: PRODUCTIVITY, DECISION MAKING AND PERFORMANCE ........................... 2 WEEK 3: LEADERSHIP IN GROUPS: A SOCIAL IDENTITY ANALYSIS .................................................................. 8 WEEK 4: UNEXPECTED LEADERS ........................................................................................................ 15 WEEK 6: GROUPS AT WORK, APPLYING SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY............................................................... 20 WEEK 7: INNOVATION, CREATIVITY & PROBLEM SOLVING (1), HIDDEN PROFILE ........................................... 27 WEEK 8: INNOVATION, CREATIVITY & PROBLEM SOLVING (2), HIDDEN PROFILE ........................................... 29 WEEK 9: ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT.............................................................................................. 31 WEEK 10: ALCOHOL AND GROUPS ..................................................................................................... 35 WEEK 11: SOCIAL DILEMMAS, THEORY AND APPLICATIONS...................................................................... 42 WEEK 24 EXAM LECTURE ................................................................................................................. 49

Copyright© Diva Wong 2019/20

2

Week 2: Small Groups in Action: Productivity, Decision Making and Performance • Illusion of Group effectivity o People tend to see their performance in a group in a good light, partly because they can’t differentiate between own and other ideas o Illusion of working better in groups than alone o Stroebe, Diehl, & Abakoumkin (1992) • Personal experience of working in groups to make decisions or solve problems. • Leads to an experience-based belief that we work better in groups than if alone. • When on your own, more likely to think of failure but not in groups as able to cluster ideas together • Despite real group producing fewer ideas, participants in group thought their group was being more productive, more likely to enjoy session, be satisfied by their performance and felt facilitated by the presence of others • Why • Groups do produce more than one single individual (but less than a nominal group). • Group brainstorming is fun. • Self-serving bias, motivated in some way to see own performance as good o More likely to think of failure individually than in a group as there is no time, people step in with their ideas and able to cluster ideas together o Are groups better than individual? o Do groups reach their potential? • Process Loss, Steiner (1972) o An analysis of the nature of task demands and the resources of the group and how they fit together o These together constitute the potential productivity. • Potential productivity: If get resources in the group (skill, knowledge, time have, motivation) to contribute to group and combined together o Group process determines how those resources are used by the group and that determines actual productivity. • When in group motivation may change, difficult to recognise who is good at what, therefore don’t use people expertise to the max, all sorts of reason this may be the case o Actual productivity = Potential productivity – process loss • Process and Productivity o Potential performance • Optimal process is where resource of the group matches the demand • Situation will produce a best possible outcome – potential performance

Copyright© Diva Wong 2019/20

Sub potential performance • Suboptimal process • The resources in the group don’t match up with task demand • have many reasons why matching resources to task may not work • ultimately ends up in sub potential performance o Groups perform better than individuals but not as well as their potential What is process loss? o Groups take time… • Getting to know each other • Evaluating task • Pooling and sharing resources • Division of labour/tasks • Assigning weights to contributions • Encouraging full participation o Emotions get in the way… • Frustration at task • Competing motivations/different agendas • Lack of understanding o Group Process is the way a group combines members’ skills, opinions, abilities, etc., to meet the task demands. Sources of process loss, Steiner (1972) o Psychological factors • Decreases in group member ability or motivation to perform the task because of being in a group • Freeriding, social loafing: someone in group not contributing because they are relying on the efforts of others • Feeling of control of group: influence on what the group is doing • Evaluation apprehension: Don’t contribute because you are concerned on the way the group will receive or evaluate the idea o Mechanical factors • Decreases in group performance because of the relative procedural, logistic and/or organisational difficulty of group interaction. • Production blocking: can’t contribute because it is not your turn to speak, waiting for turn and may forget own idea, may not be relevant (time and effort wasted), Listening to others, waiting for turn can interrupt flow of ideas o Social norm factors • Decreases in group performance because of the necessity to adhere to norms of social behaviour. • May have egalitarian approach which everyone is taking turns to talk, takes longer to identify the person with the correct answer because everyone has a say including the people with the incorrect answer • Ostracising Sources of Process Loss in Brainstorming o Production Blocking • Listening to others, waiting for turn can interrupt flow of ideas o

•

•

•

3

Copyright© Diva Wong 2019/20 Evaluation Apprehension • Concern that one’s idea will be evaluated negatively o Social Matching • Groups try to create a social norm around reasonable performance • If uninteresting task groups match their performance to their least capable member Diehl & Stroebe (1987), (1991) o A series of experiments aimed at identifying the primary cause of process loss in brainstorming groups. Compares psychological to mechanical causes of process loss. o Process loss in brainstorming – nominal groups (had individuals coming up with ideas themselves and ideas are pooled together into a group) o Psychological factors: Evaluation apprehension and free riding o Mechanical factor: production blocking o Experiment 4 – Production blocking • Blocking apparatus • Only able to speak when your lights are on • Have earphones to stimulate evaluation apprehension • Five conditions • Condition 1 – Real groups • Condition 2 – Blocking, earphones • Condition 3 – Blocking, no earphones • Condition 4 – No blocking, no earphones (but lights) • Condition 5 – Nominal groups • Talk about ideas of ‘How can unemployment be reduced in Germany?’ • Personal assessment, r=4 o Experiment 4 – Results • Average number of ideas for real groups were 56 and for nominal groups 106, replicated • Nominal groups has a much bigger effect than real groups • Groups that performed worse was the ones with production blocking and evaluation apprehension of 38 • Average number of ideas for production blocking and no evaluation apprehension of 46 • Evaluation apprehension does have some effect but biggest effect comes from production blocking • Raises some doubts whether hearing others ideas will spark own ideas o Experiment 3 – Evaluation apprehension II • Real groups vs nominal groups • Low vs High evaluation apprehension • Low o No two way mirror and didn’t say they will be evaluated • High o Two way mirror and will be evaluated by the judge or peers • Brainstorming and idea generation in groups o Results of Experiment 3 • Main effect of Type of group, F(1, 8) = 74.08, p < 0.01 • Simple effect of Evaluation in Personal, F(1, 8) = 12.89, p < 0.01 o Literature talks about more number of ideas rather than quality of idea o Not big differences in quality of idea for both groups o

•

4

Copyright© Diva Wong 2019/20 •

•

•

5

A New Model of Brainstorming o Search for Ideas in Associative Memory – SIAM (Nijstad, Diehl, & Stroebe, 2003) o Social cognitive model o Liken Brainstorming to memory retrieval • Takes into account working memory • When brainstorming around a series of idea, cluster ideas around a theme • generate ideas in category until you hit a certain level of failure • give up on category after a certain amount of failure • moving to a next idea within a category is easy and fast but moving between categories is harder • When in group can help generate new category and can help to an extent explain concept of synergy • Can explain production blocking because to generate ideas in a category need to use working memory • Working memory has particular life span and capacity, keep idea in working memory but it can be forgotten and will be lost in the group o Problem = cue for activating images used to generate ideas, Use working memory to process group and recognise turn, can’t use working memory to generate ideas and hold them o Group has less experience with failure and therefore satisfaction is higher and belief in doing better is higher o Types of task and how they have impact on the way groups behave and perform and the source of process loss Davis & Restle (1963) o Uncovering a source of process loss for ‘staged’ problems (i.e., with steps required before solution is possible). • Rope problem • Word tangle • Gold dust • Water Jug o Optimal process: Find the member best at earlier stages, let that member complete following stages – Hierarchical process o Suboptimal process: Make no distinctions throughout stages, allow all members to continue to contribute – Egalitarian process o Tended to find that people use the egalitarian model than the hierarchical model Evaluating Process Loss o Are groups as productive as they can be? • If not why not o Task taxonomy helps analysis of performance and identification of areas of potential problem • Combine ideas and judgement together as an average • Fundamentally, The way that you approach the task is going to dictate to a big extent the type of tasks you are involved in o Could be more than one way of defining potential productivity • What if groups can catch and correct errors? What if there is something in that that can impact the outcome? o Steiner assumes individuals in groups cannot be more motivated than when alone. • But what about phenomena such as team sports social labouring and motivation gain • Groups have got very high social identity often will see different phenomena come out

Copyright© Diva Wong 2019/20

6

• Didn’t take this into account when making the model o Generally, a very useful way of looking at group performance • Overcoming Process loss o Well trained group leader • Smooth production blocking, create an encouraging environment free of evaluation apprehension o Computer mediated communication • Ideas typed without interruption, anonymous and see other group members’ ideas on screen at all times • Technology to overcome problems • Defining the potential – Steiner’s typology of tasks Task type Example Optimal group process Additive brainstorming sum of members’ resources Disjunctive Tartaglia best member’s performance Conjunctive mountain climbing worst member’s performance Compensatory bean estimation averaging Complementary ‘Clue-do’ proportion of members with each skill, etc. • Other influences o Status • Group members with higher status may have more influence o Confidence in solution • Groups in which solver most talkative far more likely to solve a problem than those in which non-solver most talkative o Number of people advocating the correct solution • If it just one person advocating, hard for other to take into board the correct solution • Decision making rules that groups can adopt o Social Decision Schemes (Davis, 1973) o Specifies a number of decision rules that groups can adopt • Majority • Unanimity (if everyone agrees) • Truth supported wins • Majority equiprobability otherwise o Initial individual distribution + decision rule = accurate prediction of group outcome o Laughlin 1980; Laughlin and Ellis 1986 • Which decision rule is used o Task type • Intellective (High demonstrability) • Minority based • E.g. 23 x 12 • Judgemental (Low demonstrability) • Majority decision • E.g. X factor o Social Norms • Politeness norms o Mandated • Juries • Three common decision schemes Groups Proportional Majority Majority, equiprob A, B A B A B A B

Copyright© Diva Wong 2019/20 4, 0 3, 1 2, 2 1, 3 0, 4 •

•

•

1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 .75 .25 1.0 0 1.0 0 .5 .5 ?? ?? .50 .50 .25 .75 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 Applications of SDS o Theory testing o Description of group process o Simulations – ‘sparse data problem’ Decision schemes as group potential o Decision schemes are exact ideals (unless used descriptively) o They can be formally mandated to a group, or they can act informally. o They are based on norms, custom or even legislation. ▪ Juries, Senate, etc. Hill’s (1982) Conclusions o Group performance generally qualitatively and quantitatively superior to the performance of the average individual, o Often inferior to that of the best individual in a statistical aggregate or to the potential suggested by a pooling model, o An exceptional individual superior to group – especially given a complex problem or if composed of many low-ability members.

7

Copyright© Diva Wong 2019/20 Week 3: Leadership in Groups: A social identity analysis • What do you think makes a good leader o Good listener o Confident, charismatic o Competent o Good talker, eloquent o Extroverted o Appropriate leadership style for tasks, able to switch between styles o Empathy o Inspirational, pro ingroup o Organised o Represents the good ethic and norm o Adaptable o Strategic o Resist pressure, able to handle pressure o Underlying schema of what leaders are o Similarity between groups o Societal expectation of what leaders are, representation of what leaders are o Ideal team member, links into leadership • Social psychological analysis of leadership o Real focus on leader, less focus on group and context o Context is important because ▪ Fast changing world, perception of leader changing ▪ Across culture ▪ Where context is salient, social identity emerges ▪ Different identities emerge in different contexts • Summary of leadership research o Leadership characteristics o Leader behaviour o Small group dynamics o Transformational o Transactional o Leadership categorization o Leader-Member exchange o Social influence • What makes a good leader? o Based on Crisp & Turner (2007) o Transactional ▪ I do something for you, you do something for me o Transformational ▪ Inspirational, motivating people so they want to do it, not relying on transaction o Style ▪ Autocratic: I tell you what to do ▪ Democratic: We all work it out together and decide what to do ▪ Laissez-faire: I sit back and you do what you want ▪ Task-focus: focus on task ▪ Socio emotional: focus on relationship and how you generate emotions to be used

8

Copyright© Diva Wong 2019/20 •

•

•

•

•

9

Social influence o Influencing other people to achieve a group goal to maintain a group identity o Influence more than power, form what we want them to do o Most theories of leadership neglect the idea that leadership essentially involves social influence o Yukl provides an extensive summary of leadership in organizations and comments that “Influence is the essence of leadership” (2002, p.141) o Leader may have direct influence because they have more information, control over punishments and rewards, ultimate decision-making powers, control – more transactional? o Influence can also be indirect, through developing loyalty and emotive links – more transformational? ▪ Influence using inspirational, it’s their goal o SIT & SCT have a lot to say about social influence Social identity and Social Influence o SCT suggests that individuals are motivated to reduce uncertainty by increasing consensus o Therefore, members are motivated to conform to group norms o The norms form the basis of the group prototype so are central in the selfcategorization process o Prototypes are cognitively represented in terms of exemplars (most prototypical category member, specific person) o If the leaders are prototypical, they may be able to change the group norms (social influence) o Idiosyncrasy credits ▪ If there is someone who is very prototypical and seen as prototypical ▪ Represent what we are and who we are as a group ▪ Can build up credits to transform group norms ▪ Can shift the dynamic of the group ▪ Can transform how others see themselves Social Identity Theory of Leadership (Hogg, 2001; Hogg, van Knippenberg, & Rast, 2012) o Leadership emerges through the operation of ordinary social cognitive processes associated with psychological belonging to a group → this has not been elaborated in traditional approaches to leadership. o Leadership is imbedded in group process, emerges in people o The social orientation between individuals and the group process is somewhat neglected. Hogg’s analysis o Integrates two notions ▪ 1) Leadership is relational • leader and followers’ interdependent roles which are embedded in a social system bound by a common group • other people involved • group process ▪ 2) Leadership is a process of influence that enlists and mobilises others for the group goal ▪ All part of a common group and all working towards something together Self-conceptualization o It’s how we see ourselves o Affects perceptions, feelings, beliefs, attitudes, behaviours o Is fluid based on context:

Copyright© Diva Wong 2019/20

10

▪

•

•

•

The more self is based on collective representation (“us”) and therefore the ingroup prototype the more behaviour becomes group based (both intraand inter-) – conformity, solidarity, normative, stereotyping, discrimination etc. o Depersonalization → self-stereotyping in terms of group identity; conform; identify; seeing self and others in terms of social identity than their individual personality o Don’t get confused with dehumanisation (negative) o As depersonalizing self-increases so too does depersonalize other group members in terms of the prototype o Seeing ourselves and rest of group more in terms of group prototype and group identity than anything else Prototypicality and Leadership o As group membership becomes salient leader effectiveness and evaluations etc. become based on relative prototypicality o When group identity becomes salient, think in terms of prototype and when looking at leader we see how closely they fit into the prototype that we have o Prototype can be the position that captures the central tendency (the norm is like an average, average person of group) or in terms of leadership, it can be the position which polarises the group away from the outgroup o Prototype is distant from the outgroup as oppose to the average of the ingroup o In both situation the prototype is making the group distinct, embody who we are as a group, set us apart from outgroup o Leadership is a social influence Leadership and Social Attraction o Prototypicality affects perceptions but also feelings o Ingroup preferred to outgroup o Prototypical ingroup members preferred to prototypical outgroup members o Making our perception based on their identity of the member of our ingroup o If the leader is prototypical then will be perceived as attractive and, therefore, influential, tie into social influence o If someone better represents the prototype of the group will have more social influence and emerge as a leader o A consequence of increased liking is increased compliance with requests, compliance conformity and obedience, if we like them more, want to do as they say, become more obedient o Over time this is strengthened even more, the longer they are in a leadership role, the more the prototype becomes imbedded and easier for this to happen o Can lead to influence and ability to innovate o Can lead to permissi...