280 C H A P T E R 9
most ILTs. This leader sought out information, clar- content of these ILTS is influenced by members’
ified his attitudes, and prevented conflicts. As the experiences with leaders—and these experiences
prototype-matching hypothesis predicts, the proto- may vary from one culture to another. The manage-
typical leader was judged to be more effective than ment scholar Robert J. House and his colleagues
the atypical leader, with a match to ITL explaining (2004) studied these cultural variations in perceptions
the majority of the variance in leadership evaluations. of leadership in the Global Leadership and Organiza-
tional Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project. The
Biases and Errors ILTs help followers to sift GLOBE researchers, drawing on previous studies of
through and organize a welter of information leadership, developed a set of items to give respon-
about current or future leaders, but they provide dents who were to indicate if these qualities were
this service at a cost. If individuals’ ILTs are based those that inhibit, or contribute to, a person being
on factors that are irrelevant to successful an outstanding leader. The items were translated to
leadership—such as skin color or sex—then people the language of each country, usually by a professional
will sometimes see leadership when none actually translator and then translated back into English by a
exists and overlook leadership when they do not second party to verify that the translated term
expect it. When voters must select a leader, they matched the meaning of the original English word.
sometimes fall prey to the Warren Harding Effect;
they think a handsome candidate has great leader- To be certain that the findings they obtained
ship potential, even when he is thoroughly incom- were not caused by differences in the background
petent (Gladwell, 2005). If members are satisfied and experiences of the individuals within each
with a leader, they may attribute characteristics to country—its findings would be difficult to interpret
him or her that are consistent with their ILT, but if, for example, the survey was completed by mostly
inconsistent with the leader’s actual qualities. ILTs college students in one country but military officers
can even bias memories, for people remember their in another—the researchers asked over 17,000
favored leaders acting in ways that confirm their managers in 951 businesses in financial services,
ILTs, even when the leader performed no such food processing, and telecommunication industries
action (Foti & Lord, 1987). If their group or orga- to complete the survey. The participants were also
nization performs poorly, members are quicker to asked to describe the values of the organization
blame the leader for the failure if he or she has ITL- where they worked and the country where they
inconsistent qualities (Ryan et al., 2011). lived. These data were then examined to identify
those leadership qualities and cultural values that
The biasing influence of ILTs on followers’ were shared within an organization or country.
perceptions and evaluations of leaders may also Items only made it to the list of a culture’s beliefs
explain continuing sex differences in leadership. If about leadership if a significant majority of the indi-
ILTs were like actual scientific theories, then group viduals in the survey from that country agreed with
members would discard them when they fail to each other on the relative importance of the item.
explain who is and who is not an effective leader. In terms of level of analysis, this step shifted the data
But ILTs, because they are implicit theories, are from the individual level to the group level.
rarely recognized or revised. In consequence, if
followers’ ILTs are biased in favor of individuals The GLOBE project yielded a wealth of informa-
who are white, masculine, tall, or just highly tion about leadership and its cultural specificity.
vocal, then people with these qualities will rise to Table 9.2, for example, summarizes just a small portion
positions of authority in the group, even if they are of the study’s findings (see, too, Figure 9.2). It indicates
not qualified for these positions (Leary, 2017b). that leadership is not just a process common to all cul-
tures, but that people worldwide also share some basic
ILTs across Cultures: GLOBE The theory of beliefs about leadership. People expect leaders to be
ILTs assumes all followers have ILTs, but that the diplomatic, moral, charismatic (inspirational and
visionary), and team-oriented, as well as dependable,
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 281
T A B L E 9.2 Shared Conceptions of Leaders Identified by the GLOBE Study of 62 Different
Countries
Leadership Dimension Leader Attribute Questionnaire Items
Diplomatic: skilled at ■ effective bargainer: able to negotiate effectively
interpersonal relations, ■ win/win problem solver: able to identify solutions that satisfy individuals with
tactful
diverse and conflicting interests
Integrity: moral ■ trustworthy: deserves trust, can be believed and relied upon to keep his or her
respectability word
■ just: acts according to what is right or fair
■ honest: speaks and acts truthfully
Inspirational: inspires ■ encouraging: gives courage, confidence, or hope through reassuring and
others to be motivated to advising
work hard
■ positive: generally optimistic and confident
■ dynamic: highly involved, energetic, enthused, motivated
■ motive arouser: mobilizes and activates followers
■ confidence builder: instills others with confidence by showing confidence in
them
■ motivational: stimulates others to put forth efforts above and beyond the call
of duty and make personal sacrifices
Team-oriented: interpersonal ■ communicative: communicates with others frequently
and organizational skills ■ informed: knowledgeable; aware of information
■ coordinator: integrates and manages work of subordinates
■ team builder: able to induce group members to work together
Visionary: vision and ■ foresight: anticipates possible future events
imagination of the future ■ plans ahead: anticipates and prepares in advance
Other qualities ■ dependable: reliable
■ intelligent: smart, learns and understands quickly
■ decisive: makes decisions firmly and quickly
■ administratively skilled: able to plan, organize coordinate, and control work of
large numbers of individuals
■ excellence-oriented: strives for excellence in performance of self and
subordinates
SOURCE: Adapted from TBL21.2 (p. 677) in Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). Leadership and cultural variation. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges,
M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 669–719). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
intelligent, decisive, and administratively skilled. Those that were unique to a specific country or world
qualities that were considered to be most undesirable region. Whereas most people surveyed expected
in a leader were those associated with a lack of effective leaders to be visionary and team-focused,
integrity, self-centeredness, and asocial tendencies some cultures stressed these qualities more than others.
(Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004). Highly collectivistic societies, for example, favored
charismatic leaders more so than more individualistic
In addition to these universal qualities, the cultures. Cultures that displayed higher levels of
GLOBE researchers also identified leadership qualities
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
282 C H A P T E R 9
gender egalitarianism stressed participative, team- effective as leaders (Hogg, 2010, p. 1195). In a test of
focused leadership. Those individuals who lived in this hypothesis, researchers formed ad hoc groups in
cultures marked by hierarchical power structures the laboratory and appointed one member as leader
and greater levels of elitism were more tolerant of of each group. They manipulated the psychological
self-centered leaders who were status conscious and salience of the groups by telling some members that
formalistic. The GLOBE researchers also discovered everyone in the group shared certain qualities, whereas
that certain specific traits were highly valued in others were told the groups were just loose aggrega-
some cultures but seen as harmful to leadership in tions with no commonalities. They also circulated
others. Even such questionable qualities as risk- within the group some background information
taking, cunning, elitism, micromanagement, and about the leader to indicate that he or she matched
willfulness were viewed as positive qualities in the fictitious group prototype or did not match it.
some cultures. Given these findings, the GLOBE As predicted, group members who identified with
researchers reminded those who lead multicultural the group were more positive about the prototypical
teams to remember that not everyone in the group leader (Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997).
will value all forms of leadership similarly (Dorfman
et al., 2004). Leadership in Intergroup Situations Social iden-
tity theory also suggests that people will favor indivi-
9-3b Social Identity Theory duals who not only exemplify the group, but also
those with qualities that demonstrate what makes the
Social identity theory, perhaps more than any other group different from, and superior to, other groups.
theory of leadership, recognizes that leadership is fun- In general, members expect their leader to champion
damentally a group-level process. As individuals come the ingroup and its unique strengths. In consequence,
to categorize themselves as members of the group, leaders who, during intergroup conflict, make concil-
and identify with that group, they develop an ideal- iatory gestures toward the outgroup may lose the sup-
ized image of the prototypical member of the group, port of their own group. A skilled leader, recognizing
similar to an ILT, and over time consensus will this appeal, may use self-presentational strategies to lay
emerge on these characteristics. Applied to leadership, claim to qualities that are prototypical ones for the
social identity theory predicts that when group mem- group and to bolster their popularity by creating con-
bers share a social identity, they will favor individuals flicts with, and denigrating, other groups (Haslam et al.,
in the group who best represent that identity. For 2015). Those who convince the other group members
example, groups that prize cooperation and sensitive that they are “one of us,” while at the same time offer-
communication among members should favor ing a unique and socially desirable vision of the group’s
relationship-oriented leaders, whereas groups of future, are particularly likely to be endorsed by group
individuals who pride themselves on their action members (Halevy, Berson, & Galinsky, 2011).
and productivity will support task-oriented leaders
(Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2015; Hogg, 2013). 9-3c Social Role Theory
Prototypicality and Identity The leader’s proto- Alice Eagly’s social role theory, like ILT and
typicality is particularly important for group members social identity theory, suggests that group members
who strongly identify with their group. If, for example, have definite expectations about what kind of
the group is newly formed or members are not com-
mitted to continuing in the group, they are less likely social role theory A conceptual analysis of sex differ-
to base their leadership preferences on prototypicality. ences that recognizes men and women take on different
But “as group membership becomes more important types of roles in many societies and that these role expec-
to self-definition and members identify more strongly tations generate gender stereotypes and differences in the
with the group, leaders who are perceived to be more behavior of women and men (proposed by Alice Eagly).
group prototypical” are more likely to emerge and be
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 283
qualities are needed in a person who will fill the 9-3d Terror Management Theory
role of a leader. These expectations tend to empha-
size the agentic, task-oriented side of leadership The idea that people are drawn to powerful leaders
rather than the communal and interpersonal. for less than rational reasons is consistent with ter-
When group members are asked to describe the ror management theory (TMT). This theory
qualities needed in a leader, they stress the impor- assumes that humans, perhaps uniquely, are aware
tance of competition with peers, high energy, dom- that someday their earthly existence will come to an
inance, forcefulness, and skill at taking command end. This awareness of one’s inevitable demise, if
and controlling a situation (Eagly & Karau, 2002). cognitively inescapable, would be the source of
continuous existential anguish, so the human
These expectations, however, favor men relative mind has developed defenses against thoughts of
to women as leaders. Although gender stereotypes death. TMT suggests, for example, that culture
vary across time and place, people in virtually all diminishes this psychological terror by providing
cultures, when asked to describe women, speak of meaning, organization, and a coherent worldview.
their expressive qualities, including nurturance, emo- Self-esteem and pride, too, function to elevate
tionality, and warmth. They expect a “she” to be one’s sense of worth and serve as a defense against
sentimental, affectionate, sympathetic, soft-hearted, the intrusive thoughts of death (Greenberg,
talkative, gentle, and feminine. When describing Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997).
men, they stress their instrumental qualities, includ-
ing productivity, energy, and strength (Williams & TMT explains why the popularity of a leader
Best, 1990). In consequence, the expectations asso- sometimes increases during a crisis. After the terror-
ciated with leadership mesh with the male gender ist attacks on the United States in 2001, for exam-
role stereotype, but the leadership role is inconsistent ple, U.S. citizen’s approval ratings of then-president
with stereotypes about women. When people think George W. Bush jumped from about 40% to 90%.
“leader,” they think “male” (Koenig et al., 2011). TMT suggests that the attack made citizens aware
of their mortality and also threatened their world-
This role incongruity not only disqualifies view. Bush, by promising to find the terrorists
women from taking the lead in groups, but it also responsible for this horrible action and bring them
creates a double standard for women once they to justice swiftly, provided an antidote to their exis-
achieve a position of leadership. Women, to be tential concerns.
evaluated as positively as men, must outperform
men. When Eagly and her colleagues reviewed 61 Researchers have put TMT to the test by
different studies that asked people to evaluate the reminding some people of their mortality and
performance of male and female leaders, they found then assessing their preferences for different types
that the behaviors and outcomes achieved by men of leaders (Cohen et al., 2004, 2005; Landau
were viewed more positively than the exact same et al., 2004). One study, for example, compared
outcomes achieved by women (Eagly, Makhijani, preferences for three candidates for political office.
& Klonsky, 1992). Ironically, this bias reaches its
peak when a female leader adopts a more task- ■ The task-oriented leader stressed setting difficult
oriented approach to leadership. In a classic exam- but achievable goals, strategic planning, and
ple of a “Catch-22,” women are urged to act more initiating structure.
like male leaders, but when they do, they are deni-
grated for not being “ladylike” (Hoyt, 2010). ■ The relationship-oriented leader communicated
Caught in this double-bind, women respond by compassion, respect, trust, and confidence in
avoiding the leader role, by underperforming as lea- others.
ders due to the pressure of the negative stereotypes,
or by actively resisting the stereotypes and doing terror management theory (TMT) A conceptual
what they can to invalidate members’ negative analysis of the implicit psychological processes thought
expectations (Hoyt & Chemers, 2008). to defend individuals from the emotionally terrifying
knowledge that they are mortal and will someday die.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
284 C H A P T E R 9
■ The charismatic leader spoke of long-term goals, unity, and stepped forward when the group con-
the unique value of the nation, and working fronted danger (Glowacki & von Rueden, 2015).
together.
Leadership and Dominance Evolutionary the-
Before evaluating these candidates, participants in ory does not consider leadership to be the same as
the mortality-salience condition were reminded of a dominance contest, where the strongest member
their eventual demise in a not-so-subtle way: They of the group—most likely a male—bests all others
were asked to describe the emotions that the thought in the group through force. Leadership benefited
of their own death aroused in them and to write both those who led and those who followed, for
down what will happen to them, physically, when in scarce resource environments competition
they die. Those in the control condition were asked among members, struggles for dominance, and
parallel questions, but about their next exam rather uncoordinated defensive and domestic activities
than their death. The results indicated that, in the were deadly to all. The anthropologist Napoleon
control condition, people were more positive toward Chagnon’s (1997) description of the leadership pro-
the task- and relationship-oriented leaders relative to cesses in the Yanomamö illustrates the coopted,
the charismatic one. Conversely, in the mortality- rather than contested, nature of leadership in early
salience condition, ratings of the charismatic leader groups. The leadership among the Yanomamö was
climbed and ratings of the relationship-oriented leader not based on heredity or physical strength, but
dropped. The task-oriented leader was the most rather on record of service to the village. Leaders
favorably rated in both conditions (Cohen et al., gained some special rewards for themselves and
2004). Other research finds that, as social role theory their kin, but they frequently proved their worth
might suggest, individuals reminded of their mortality to the entire group by settling arguments, planning
prefer as their leaders (a) members of their own group, the group’s hunting activities, seeking out connec-
or (b) men rather than women (Hoyt, Simon, & tions with other villages, and providing for the
Innella, 2011). defense of the village. This final responsibility put
the leader at risk in many cases, for the Yanomamö
9-3e Evolutionary Theory are known as the “fierce people”—neighboring vil-
lages are in a constant state of war with each other.
Evolutionary psychology suggests that leadership is
an adaptation: a heritable characteristic that developed Mismatch Hypothesis Evolutionary theory
in a population over a long period of time. Adapta- maintains that the adaptive advantages of leadership
tions enhance individuals’ fitness, for they increase are achieved only if the group selects the most qual-
the chances of their genetic material being repre- ified individual to lead. Natural selection therefore
sented in future generations of the species. Leader- encouraged the development of the mental appara-
ship and followership, as adaptations, evolved tus needed to evaluate those who sought the posi-
because they contributed so substantially to survival. tion of leadership. Followers, for example, are
Our ancestors likely lived in small groups of geneti- biologically prepared to gather the social data they
cally related individuals, and these groups prospered need to determine if their leaders are competent,
only if members cooperated with each other. group-oriented, biased, or unfair (Smith, Larimer,
Early leaders led the group from one place to the et al., 2007). Their preference for older, more
next, but in time the role expanded as the leader’s experienced, and those who are both task and rela-
facilitative impact on coordinated movement tionally skilled may also be genetically prescribed.
extended to coordination in general. A leader
made plans and recruited other members to put These tendencies, however, evolved in human
them into effect, made decisions about alternative groups that existed in a time that differed in dra-
courses of action that were available to the group, matic ways from the groups and communities
quelled conflict that could undermine the group’s where humans currently live. As a result, the
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 285
psychological and interpersonal reactions of both leadership. But this model not only described
followers and leaders are influenced by genetic ten- what leaders do, but it also suggests what leaders
dencies that are not as behaviorally adaptive as they should do in order to be effective. Groups, to suc-
were in earlier evolutionary contexts. Social and ceed, need leaders who guide the group members
evolutionary psychologist Mark Van Vugt and his in their pursuit of their shared objectives, but they
colleagues term this possibility the evolutionary mis- also need leaders who can maintain the interper-
match hypothesis (von Rueden & Van Vugt, 2015). sonal bonds that sustain the group. As Beers
This mismatch may, for example, cause people to (2012, p. 153) puts it: “There comes a time when
prefer men as leaders in political contexts. Van Vugt work shifts from being about the content of the
and his colleagues reasoned that humans do not meeting to your relationship with those in the
consistently favor males over females, but moderate meeting….It’s a moment when the relationship (R)
their choices depending on the situation. They sug- is greater than (>) the work (W).”
gest that groups, for millennia, relied on male lea-
ders to lead their groups when they confronted The Leadership Grid Psychologist Robert Blake
other rival tribes. These same groups, however, and management expert Jane Mouton’s classic Lead-
relied on women leaders to make certain that the ership Grid theory is an example of a style theory of
relations within the group were strong and that any leadership. They hypothesized that a person’s leader-
intragroup conflicts were minimized so that the ship style depends on how they answer two basic
group’s cohesion was not damaged. In their questions: (1) How important is the production of
research, they supported this hypothesis by finding results by the group? (2) How important are the
that individuals playing an investment-type game feelings of group members? To some leaders, the
preferred a woman as leader during intragroup key goal is achieving results. For others, positive feel-
competition, but a man as leader during intergroup ings in the group are so important that they empha-
competition. In further work, people tended to size teamwork and personal satisfaction. Others may
prefer more masculine-looking leaders in situations feel that both of these goals are important (Blake &
involving intergroup conflict (Spisak et al., 2012; Mouton, 1964, 1982).
Van Vugt & Spisak, 2008).
Blake and Mouton summarized these differences
9-4 LEADER EFFECTIVENESS in their Leadership Grid (formerly called the Man-
agerial Grid), which is presented in Figure 9.3. Both
Alexander the Great controlled a huge empire with- dimensions—concern for people and concern for
out any modern means of transportation or commu- results—are represented as 9-point scales ranging
nication. General George S. Patton inspired those from low concern to high concern. Although a person’s
under his command by displaying high levels of per- orientation could fall at any of 81 possible positions
sonal confidence, sureness, and an immense strength on the grid, Blake and Mouton emphasized the five
of character. Charlotte Beers rescued Ogilvy from its located at the four corner positions and the center.
doldrums, returning it to its place as the premier An apathetic, impoverished 1,1 leader is hardly a
advertising company in the world. Alexander, Patton, leader, for he or she is not interested in subordinates’
and Beers are not simply leaders. They are effective feelings or the production of results. The 9,1 indi-
leaders. But what was the key to their effectiveness? vidual (high on concern for production, but low on
concern for people, located in the lower right corner
9-4a Styles and Situations Leadership Grid A theory of management and leader-
ship assuming that people vary in their concern for results
The two-factor model of leadership, which was dis- and their concern for people and that individuals who are
cussed earlier in the chapter, identified two core high on both dimensions (9,9) are the best leaders (devel-
components of leadership: task and relationship oped by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
286 C H A P T E R 9
High did the favorable results of their management train-
ing system. Their theory is also consistent with the
9 1,9 Management 9,9 Management meta-analytic results summarized in Figure 9.4.
Work accomplishment is When researchers used meta-analysis to combine
Thoughtful attention to from committed people; the results of over 320 correlational findings gener-
interdependence through ated in 130 studies of leadership, they found that
needs of people for a “common stake” in both task and relationship leadership predicted criti-
8 satisfying relationships organization purpose cally important leadership outcomes. The correlation
leads to relationships of between task leadership and outcomes was .29, and
leads to a comfortable, trust and respect. the correlation between relationship leadership and
outcomes was stronger, still: .48. The correlation
7 friendly organization between relationship leadership and one particular
atmosphere and outcome—follower satisfaction—was particularly
strong (r = .68; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004; see,
Concern for people work tempo. too, DeRue et al., 2011).
6 5,5 Management Situational Leadership Theory Management
experts Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard
Adequate organization (1976) also described leadership in terms of the
relationship and task dimensions. Unlike Blake
5 performance is possible and Mouton’s grid, however, their situational
through balancing the leadership® theory suggests that effective leaders
combine supportive behaviors with directive
necessity to get out behaviors depending on the performance readiness®
of the group or subordinate. Some groups are fur-
4 work with maintaining ther along in their developmental progression than
morale of people at a others, and so members are both willing and able
to do the work required to accomplish the group’s
satisfactory level. goals. Other groups, in contrast, are not yet ready
to reach their performance goals, perhaps because
3 1,1 Management 9,1 Management they lack the skills and knowledge needed to per-
Exertion of minimum Efficiency in operations form their assigned tasks or they are not motivated
2 effort to get results from arranging to do what the group asks them to do (Hersey,
required work done conditions of work in Blanchard, & Johnson, 2013).
1 is appropriate to such a way that human
Low sustain organization elements interfere to Hersey and Blanchard recommend that leaders
membership. a minimum degree. adapt their methods to match the group’s readiness.
If group members are low in readiness—they are
1234 56789 both unwilling and unable—then a task-focused,
directing style will be most effective. As the group
Low Concern for production High develops and gains more experience on the task and
commitment to the group’s goals, the leader can
F I G U R E 9.3 The Leadership Grid (formerly, the increase relationship behavior and adopt a coaching
Managerial Grid). This model distinguishes between five
basic leadership styles and recommends the 9, 9 style situational leadership® theory A theory of leadership
above all others. suggesting that groups benefit from leadership that
meshes with a group’s stage of development (developed
SOURCE: Adapted from Leadership Dilemmas—Grid Solutions, p. 29, Robert by Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard).
R. Blake and Anne Adams McCanse. Copyright © 1991 by Robert R. Blake
and the Estate of Jane S. Mouton. Used with permission. All rights reserved.
of the grid) is a taskmaster who seeks productivity at
any cost. The 1,9 leader, in contrast, adopts a “coun-
try club” approach that makes subordinates feel
comfortable and relaxed in the group. The
“middle-of-the-roader,” located at 5,5, tries to bal-
ance both performance and morale but sometimes
sacrifices both when results and individuals’ feelings
come into conflict. Finally, the 9,9 leader highly
values both people and products and therefore
tackles organizational goals through teamwork—“a
high degree of shared responsibility, coupled with
high participation, involvement, and commitment”
(Blake & Mouton, 1982, p. 41).
Blake and Mouton (1982) felt that the 9,9 lead-
ership style was the most effective style overall. In
their initial studies, they found that managers who
adopted the 9,9 style were far more successful in
their careers than managers who adopted other
methods. They also noted that studies conducted
in educational, industrial, and medical organizations
supported the utility of the 9, 9 leadership style, as
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 287
Leader effectiveness Task
Group performance Relationship
Leader job
performance
Follower motivation
Follower satisfaction
with leader
Follower job
satisfaction
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Correlation
F I G U R E 9.4 The relationship between task-oriented leadership (structuring), relational leadership (support), and
leadership outcomes. When researchers used meta-analysis to combine the results of over 320 correlational findings
generated in 130 studies of leadership behavior, they found that both facets of leadership predicted critically impor-
tant leadership outcomes, but that relationship leadership was more closely associated with follower satisfaction
(Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004).
SOURCE: From tabled data in Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 36–51.
style (still high direction but with support added). amounts of task and relationship leadership—is
Still later in the group’s development, the leader consistent with research findings. One of the key
can ease off on both types of leadership, starting sources of leadership success is flexibility in provid-
first with task direction. In moderately mature ing to the group more or less relational support and
groups, the supporting style of leadership is most task-orientation, depending on the group’s needs
effective, and in fully mature groups, a delegating (Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991). Newly hired
leadership style is best. Thus, an effective leader employees, for example, need and appreciate
must display four different leadership styles as the greater task structuring from their manager than
group moves through its life cycle—directing, do veteran employees (Vecchio, 1987). Conversely,
coaching, supporting, and delegating (Hersey members with higher levels of education and
et al., 2013). greater levels of job tenure may prefer a leader
who provides less task structure (Vecchio &
Some critics have argued that situational lead- Boatwright, 2002). The theory’s training methods
ership theory puts too much emphasis on matching and measures are also very popular among business
the readiness of the members; these experts call for a professionals (Blanchard & Johnson, 1981).
careful balancing of task and relationship orienta-
tion at all developmental levels (Vecchio, Bullis, & Contingency Theory Industrial organizational
Brazil, 2006). But the basic premise on which the psychologist Fred Fiedler’s (1964, 1978, 1996)
model rests—that different groups need varying
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
288 C H A P T E R 9
contingency theory also assumes that individuals unfavorable. Octant VIII is the least favorable situa-
differ in their leadership style. Fiedler termed this tion, for all three variables combine in a group that is
tendency the leader’s motivational style, which he difficult for the leader to control.
measured using the Least Preferred Coworker
Scale (LPC). Respondents first think of the one Fiedler did not believe that either type of
individual with whom they have had the most dif- leader—task-motivated or relationship-motivated—is
ficulty working at some time. They then rate this better overall. Instead, he predicted that task-oriented
person, dubbed the least preferred coworker, on bipolar leaders (low LPC score) would be most effective in
adjective scales such as “pleasant–unpleasant,” situations that are either highly favorable or highly
“friendly–unfriendly,” and “tense–relaxed.” People unfavorable, whereas relationship-oriented leaders
with high scores on the LPC are assumed to be (high LPC score) would be most effective in
relationship-oriented; after all, they even rate the middle-range situations. If, for example, Beers is a
person they do not like to work with positively. low-LPC leader (task-motivated), she will get the
Low LPC scorers are assumed to be task-oriented. most out of groups in Octants I, II, and III where
situational favorability is high, as well as in Octant
Just as motivational style is the key person variable VIII, the least favorable situation. If she were a
in contingency theory, control is the key situational high-LPC leader, her groups would perform best in
factor in the model. In some groups leaders can be the middle-range situations—Octants IV to VII.
certain that decisions, actions, and suggestions will be Why? Fiedler suggested that in difficult groups
carried out by their followers. But in others, leaders (Octant VIII), task-motivated leaders drive the
have trouble gaining control, and so cannot be certain group toward its goals, but relationship-motivated lea-
that the group members will carry out their assigned ders spend too much time repairing relations. In
duties. And what determines how much control a highly favorable (Octants I–III) situations, in contrast,
leader has in any given situation? The quality of task-oriented leaders become more considerate, yield-
leader–member relations, the degree of task structure, ing a more satisfied workgroup.
and the leader’s position power. As Figure 9.5 indi-
cates, if leader–member relations are good, the task is Contingency theory, like all theories, has both
structured, and the leader’s power is strong, the setting weaknesses and strengths. Despite years of research,
is a very favorable one for a leader (Octant I). But, as experts are divided on the model’s validity, with
each one of these indicators of control changes from some arguing that evidence supports the model
positive to negative—the leader’s power becomes and others arguing against it (see Chemers, 1997,
weak, the task becomes unstructured, and leader– for a review). Investigators have challenged not
member relations shift from good to bad—then the only the strength of the relationships that provide
leadership situation becomes more and more the basis of the predictions in the eight octants in
Figure 9.5, but they have also questioned the meth-
contingency theory Any theory that suggests a leader’s ods that Fiedler used to measure leaders’ motiva-
effectiveness is contingent on situational factors; usually tional style. In defense of contingency theory,
used in reference to Fiedler’s conceptual analysis of lead- however, studies of a variety of working groups
ership, which posits that a leader’s success is determined support the complex predictions charted in
by his or her leadership style and the favorability of the Figure 9.5 (Ayman, Chemers, & Fiedler, 2007).
group situation; more generally, any analysis of leader-
ship that suggests that the effectiveness of leaders depends The effectiveness of a unique leadership training
on the interaction of their personal characteristics and the program, called Leader Match, also supports the validity
group situation. of contingency theory. Although many different pro-
Least Preferred Coworker Scale (LPC) An indirect grams and techniques have been developed to train
measure of the tendency to lead by stressing the task (low leaders, the results of these procedures are typically
LPC) or relationships (high LPC) (developed by Fred disappointing. Fiedler, however, suggested that these
Fiedler). programs fail because they place too much emphasis
on changing the leaders—making them more sup-
portive, more decisive, more democratic, and so on.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 289
1.00Correlations between Relationship-
0.80 leader LPC and effectiveness motivated
0.60 leadership
0.40
0.20 most effective
0.00
20.20 Task-motivated
20.40 leadership
20.60
20.80 most effective
21.00
Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak
Position power
Task structure Structured Unstructured Structured Unstructured
Good
Leader–member Bad
relations
Favorable Situational Control Unfavorable
F I G U R E 9.5 Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership. The theory assumes that effectiveness depends on three
aspects of the group situation: leader–member relations, task structure, and the leader’s position of power. Octant I
corresponds to the most controllable and favorable situation, and Octant VIII corresponds to the least controllable and
least favorable setting. The vertical axis indicates the predicted relationship between LPC scores and task performance.
If the correlation is greater than 0 (positive), effectiveness is positively related to LPC; that is, relationship-motivated
leaders are more effective. If the correlation is smaller than 0 (negative), effectiveness is negatively related to LPC;
task-motivated leaders are more effective. The graph suggests that a task-oriented leader is more effective when the
situation is favorable (Octants I, II, and III) or unfavorable (Octant VIII) for the leader.
SOURCE: Adapted from “The Contingency Model and the Dynamics of the Leadership Process.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11 (1978),
pp. 59–112, by Fred E. Fiedler. Adapted by permission of Elsevier.
He suggested instead that the situation should be interventions. But such a “one size fits all” approach
engineered to fit the leader’s particular motivational does not always match the needs of specific group
style. He called his training program Leader Match members. Whereas one group member may work
because he taught trainees to modify their group situ- well with a task-oriented leader, others may prefer a
ation until it matched their personal motivational style leader who provides them with support.
(Fiedler, Chemers, & Mahar, 1976). Studies of the
effectiveness of this innovative training program sug- Leader–member exchange theory (LMX
gest that trained leaders outperform untrained leaders, theory) uniquely stresses the quality of the one-
although degree of improvement depends on who is to-one relationship between a leader and a subor-
doing the evaluations (Burke & Day, 1986; Taylor, dinate. LMX theory (and its predecessor, vertical
Russ-Eft, & Taylor, 2009). dyad linkage theory) notes that leaders have dyadic
9-4b Leader–Member Exchange leader–member exchange theory A dyadic, relational
approach to leadership assuming that leaders develop
Theory
exchange relationships with each of their subordinates and
Style, situational, and contingency theories of lead- that the quality of these leader–member exchange (LMX)
ership focus on the leader’s style or strategy and relationships influences subordinates’ responsibility, decision
how the group responds as a whole to various influence, access to resources, and performance.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
290 C H A P T E R 9
What Is Your Motivational Style?
Most leadership theories argue that people consis- Supportive: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Hostile
tently use a particular set of methods and techniques Boring: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Interesting
whenever they find themselves in charge of a group. Quarrelsome: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Harmonious
Different theorists describe these leadership styles dif- Gloomy: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Cheerful
ferently, but most highlight two key aspects: focus on Open: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Guarded
the task and focus on the relationships among the Backbiting: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Loyal
members. Untrustworthy: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Trustworthy
Considerate: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Inconsiderate
Instructions. Fiedler’s (1978) Least Preferred Nasty: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Nice
Coworker Scale assesses individual differences in Agreeable: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Disagreeable
leadership style. To complete the measure, first think Insincere: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Sincere
of a person with whom you work least well. He or she Kind: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Unkind
may be someone you work with now or someone you
knew in the past. This coworker does not have to be Scoring. Add up the 18 numbers you circled to get
the person you like least but should be the person with a total between 18 and 144. According to Fiedler, if
whom you had the most difficulty in getting a job you scored 56 or less, you have a task-oriented style of
done. Describe this person by circling one of the leadership. A score of 63 or higher indicates a
numbers between each pair of adjectives: relationship-oriented style of leadership. If you scored
between 56 and 63, you cannot be classified in either
Pleasant: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Unpleasant category. Remember, a high LPC score indicates you
Friendly: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :Unfriendly tend to be a relationship-oriented leader, and a low
Rejecting: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Accepting LPC indicates a task orientation. Given your score,
Tense: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Relaxed what type of group would be the “best” type of group
Distant: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Close for you to lead? Which would be the “worst”?
Cold: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :Warm
relationships with each group member and that group. They are less likely to leave the group and
these dyadic relationships may be substantially differ- more likely to earn higher performance evaluations,
ent within the total group. Some leaders may work get promoted more rapidly, express more commit-
well with only a subset of the group members who ment to the organization, voice more positive atti-
are more engaged in the group and its tasks. Other tudes about their work and the group, and garner
group members, however, may not respond as pos- more attention and support from their leader. They
itively to the leader, so their responses are defined often view their relationship with their boss as a
by their role and their fixed responsibilities partnership. The second group, the outgroup, or
(Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & outer group, includes individuals with less satisfying
Uhl-Bien, 1995). linkages to the leader. These individuals do their
work, but do not contribute as much to the
LMX theory suggests that group members tend group. They also express less loyalty and support
to cleave into subgroups within the overall group. for the leader (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).
One group, the ingroup, or inner group, includes
those individuals with positive linkages to the Researchers who have tested predictions
leader. Leaders spend more time working with derived from LMX theory have documented the
these members, value their inputs more, and also natural tendency for subgroups to develop within
provide them with more resources. These group groups and for disparities in performance to exist
members respond by working harder for the between these two cliques (Dulebohn et al.,
group, taking on additional role responsibilities, 2012). Those who enjoy a positive LMX are
and declaring their loyalty to the leader and the more likely to do things that benefit their group
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 291
and organization. These organizational citizenship share their leadership duties with the group members.
behaviors include helping other group members, Beers, for example, set the general goals for the com-
common courtesy, job dedication, civic virtue, sup- pany, but she was careful to remain in the background
porting organizational changes, and so on (Ilies, during some meetings—especially those involving the
Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Individuals who development of creative pitches to prospective or cur-
are not satisfied with their LMX tend to perform rent customers. In those meetings she deliberately
more poorly, but the strength of this relationship adopted a participatory leadership style.
depends, in part, on the degree of differentiation
within the group. In undifferentiated groups, Autocratic versus Democratic Leadership Kurt
there is little variation in LMX—no ingroup and Lewin and his colleagues Ronald Lippitt and Ralph
outgroup at all. In highly differentiated groups, in White conducted one of the earliest laboratory studies
contrast, the LMX relation varies substantially from of interacting groups to determine the relative effec-
one member to the next; there are those who work tiveness of a democratic, group-centered approach
well with the leader and those who do not. Such to leadership versus an autocratic, leader-centered
variation can lead to dissatisfaction, overall, since it is approach. As mentioned briefly in Chapter 2, they
inconsistent with principles of fairness and equal arranged for groups of 10- and 11-year-old boys to
treatment (Hooper & Martin, 2008). Therefore, lea- meet after school to work on various hobbies. In addi-
ders who recognize this tendency can improve their tion to the boys, each group included a man who
overall relations with their group by minimizing adopted one of three leadership styles (Lewin, Lippitt,
the number of people in the outer group (Graen & & White, 1939; White & Lippitt, 1960, 1968):
Uhl-Bien, 1991). However, some research suggests
that differentiation can be motivating. In such ■ The authoritarian, or autocratic, leader took no
groups, low LMX members recognize that they input from the members in making decisions
may, through hard work, meet the leader’s standards, about group activities, did not discuss the long-
for they view the leader as a discriminating judge of range goals of the group, emphasized his
group members (Liden et al., 2006). authority, dictated who would work on spe-
cific projects, and arbitrarily paired the boys
LMX theory’s dyadic approach—stressing the with their work partners.
relationship between each member and the
leader— also provides an additional way of looking ■ The democratic leader made certain that all
at leadership in general. Researchers have returned activities were first discussed by the entire
to other leadership theories, such as Fiedler’s con- group. He allowed the group members to
tingency model, and have begun to explore the make their own decisions about work projects
type of leadership style that leaders use with each or partners and encouraged the development of
group member. These dyadic-level approaches add an egalitarian atmosphere.
a second layer of information about leadership to the
more common group-level analysis (Yammarino & ■ The laissez-faire leader rarely intervened in the
Dansereau, 2008; Yammarino et al., 2005). group activities. Groups with this type of
atmosphere made all decisions on their own
9-4c Participation Theories without any supervision, and their so-called
leader functioned primarily as a source of
Some leaders do all the leading—they, and they technical information.
alone, make decisions, dole out assignments, supervise
work quality, communicate with other groups, set In some cases, the boys were rotated to a
goals, and so on. Such leaders adopt a command- different experimental condition, so they could
and-control leadership style; they give the orders and experience all three types of participation.
subordinates carry them out. Other leaders, however,
The three types of leadership resulted in differ-
ences in efficiency, satisfaction, and aggressiveness.
As Figure 9.6 indicates, the groups in the study
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
292 C H A P T E R 9
Percent 80
70 Autocracy (aggressive)
Autocracy (submissive)
60 Democratic
Laissez-faire
50
40
30
20
10 Work (no Organized Disorganized Loafing
leader) play play
0
Work
F I G U R E 9.6 The results of Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s 1939 study of authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire
leaders. The investigators identified four different “leadership climates” in the groups they studied: autocracy with
aggression, autocracy with submissiveness, democratic, and laissez-faire. The autocratic and democratic leaders were
more productive than the laissez-faire groups, but the autocratic groups were less productive when the leader left the
room. Other findings suggest that the democratic groups were more cohesive.
SOURCE: From tabled percentages reported in “The ‘social climate’ of children’s groups,” by Ronald Lippitt and Ralph K. White. In Roger G. Barker, Jacob S.
Kounin, and Merbert F. Wright (Eds.), Child behavior and development: A course of representative studies. (pp. 485–508). New York: McGraw-Hill.
reacted to the autocratic leader in one of two dis- terms of interpersonal relations and member satis-
tinctive ways. Some groups accepted the leader’s faction, however, the democratically led groups
control and became very submissive. Although were superior to all others. These findings also indi-
these groups were aggressive if the autocratic leader cate that the laissez-faire leadership climate—group
was replaced with a more permissive one, when he anarchy—was the least effect in both task and rela-
was present, the group members worked hard, tional terms. These groups were unproductive, dis-
demanded little attention, only rarely engaged in organized in their activities, and prone to loafing.
horseplay, and closely followed his recommenda- As a methodological aside, the findings should also
tions. Several other groups with an autocratic leader, be interpreted with caution because the laissez-faire
in contrast, rebelled aggressively against the leader’s condition was not originally included when Lewin
control. These groups were as productive as the and his team designed the study. But when one of
democratically led groups if the leader was present the experimenters was unable to enact the demo-
(see “work” in Figure 9.6), but once the leader left cratic style correctly and instead just distanced him-
the room, productivity dropped significantly. Mem- self from the groups, the investigators relabeled the
bers of groups with an autocratic leader displayed leadership style he used as laissez-faire leadership
greater reliance on the leader, expressed more critical (White & Lippitt, 1960, p. 21).
discontent, and made more aggressive demands for
attention. Democratic groups tended to be friendlier Shared Leadership Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s
and more group-oriented. Overall, the boys pre- (1939) findings suggested shared leadership is as effec-
ferred democratic leaders to the other two varieties. tive as centralized leadership. Such decentered leader-
ship models go by many names—co-leadership,
These findings suggest that, at least in terms of collective leadership, democratic leadership, dele-
productivity, a directive, autocratic style can be as gated leadership, empowerment, peer leadership,
effective as a participatory, democratic style. In
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 293
self-leadership, shared leadership, team leadership, But just as bad leaders are mixed with the good
and participatory leadership—but underlying ones, so followers vary in their effectiveness.
these various models is a common emphasis on Robert Kelley (1988, 2004), an organizational
breaking the leader’s monopoly on power, influ- researcher and consultant who has closely examined
ence, and authority in the group and distributing the nature of followership, asks two basic questions
responsibility for core leadership functions to all about followers: Are they active or passive, and are
the group members (D’Innocenzo, Mathieu, & they independent or dependent? First, the best fol-
Kukenberger, 2016). lowers are committed to the group and their role
within it; they are actively engaged in their work
When people think about leadership, they tend rather than passive and withdrawn. Second, effec-
to assume that it is concentrated in a single position tive followers can be self-reliant, when necessary.
rather than distributed across a group. In conse- By definition, they follow the leader, but they
quence, groups sometimes move away from shared must also be able to exercise their independence
leadership to more vertical forms of leadership— and monitor themselves and their progress. Ineffec-
with an up–down form of organization rather than tive followers are overly dependent on the leader,
side-to-side and up-and-down (Pearce, Conger, & and they are unable to think for themselves. Kelley,
Locke, 2008). However, if the members’ reactions by considering these two aspects of followers—the
to their work are a key factor in maintaining and degree of active engagement and independence—
evaluating success, a participatory approach will be identifies five types of followers:
superior to a more leader-centered method (Miller
& Monge, 1986). As Stogdill (1974) noted after ■ Conformist followers (yes people) are active and
reviewing more than 40 studies of various leader- energized, but they are devoted to the leader;
ship methods that ranged along the participation they do not think to question the leader’s
continuum, satisfaction with the group seems to directions and will defend him or her
be highest in democratic groups, as opposed to vigorously.
autocratic and laissez-faire groups. Shared methods
of leadership are also more effective in smaller ■ Passive followers (sheep) follow the lead of
rather than in larger groups and are well-suited to others, but without great enthusiasm or com-
organizations that rely on small, self-directed teams mitment. They put time into the group and
or networks of distributed, relatively independent will eventually finish their assignments, but
employees (Vroom & Mann, 1960). Groups often they must be continually monitored or they
share leadership when making decisions and when will simply stop contributing.
organized to function as a team; we will reexamine
issues related to participatory leadership in Chapters 11 ■ Pragmatic followers are the rank-and-file mem-
(Decision Making) and 12 (Teams). bers of the group; they are not clearly active,
passive, conforming, or independent, but make
Followership Theory If leadership is not con- up the group’s basic, and essential, workforce.
centrated in a single person but shared across the
group, then knowing who is in the group becomes ■ Alienated followers are not committed to the
as important as knowing who leads it. Even group or its goals, in part because they stead-
though group members are often described with fastly maintain their independence from others’
words that lack the potency of the word leader— influence. They are often sullenly silent, but
they are followers, subordinates, assistants, or merely when they speak they are critical of their fellow
reports—the group depends as much on the actions members for remaining true to the group, and
of those who accept others’ influence as it does they question the leader’s choices. They often
on those who provide guidance and direction think of themselves as the rightful leader of the
(Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). group and refuse to invest in the group or its
activities until they are accorded their rightful
position.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
294 C H A P T E R 9
■ Exemplary followers (stars) are actively engaged Early theory pertaining to transformational lea-
in the group, but they do not simply do what ders focused on their charismatic qualities. Such lea-
they are told. If they have issues with the lea- ders, through the force of their personality, their
der’s position, they express their dissent openly, spoken words, and their dynamic presentational
but constructively. The leader can delegate style, profoundly affect others. Max Weber
responsibilities to them, and they can be trusted (1921/1946), as noted in Chapter 8, used the word
to complete the task with an enthusiasm that charisma to describe such leaders, for they seem to
springs from their concern for the group’s possess a “divinely inspired gift” that sets them apart
interests. from other, more commonplace leaders. Charismatic
leaders inspire others, often by expressing ideas that
The leader’s task, suggests Kelley (1988, 2004), is are both appealing and easily understood. They tend
to transform the followers into exemplary followers, to act in ways that provide their group members
using any means possible. Groups with “many lea- with a model that they can emulate (Conger, 2011).
ders,” he concludes, “can be chaos. Groups with
none can be quite productive” (1988, p. 148)—so But it was political scientist James McGregor
long as these followers are exemplary ones who are Burns (1978) who set forth the basic assumptions
actively engaged in their work, treat one another as of the transformational approach to leadership in
colleagues, and engage in constructive debate with his book Leadership. Burns argued that most leaders
their leaders. engage primarily in what he called transactional
leadership. The follower and the leader cooperate
9-4d Transformational Leadership with one another in the pursuit of a shared goal, but
their relationship is based on the exchange of
Charlotte Beers is no ordinary CEO. She does not resources that can include time, money, help, and
just set goals and plan future initiatives, but she instruction. Transactional leadership “occurs when
inspires and excites those who work for her. one person takes the initiative in making contact
When she stepped down as CEO at Ogilvy she with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued
volunteered to assist the U.S. State Department things” (Burns, 1978, p. 19). It is “pursuit of change
craft communications that would improve U.S. in measured and often reluctant doses” (Burns, 2003,
relations with other nations. She then sought to p. 24). The only thing that unites the leader and
help women learn more about leadership by writ- follower are the resources that are exchanged. In
ing about her experiences and insights, and publish- contrast, transformational leadership “occurs
ing them in her book titled I’d Rather Be in Charge when one or more persons engage with others in
(Beers, 2012). She does not seek to lead people, but such a way that leaders and followers raise one
to transform them. another to high levels of motivation and morality”
(1978, p. 20, italics in original). Burns believed that
Charismatic Leadership and Change Effective transformational leaders not only change their
leaders contribute substantially to their groups by
structuring and facilitating the completion of tasks transactional leadership A traditional form of leader-
and also by providing members with relational ship that involves contributing time, effort, and other
support. But leaders also face a third set of respon- resources in the pursuit of collaborative goals in
sibilities: transforming the group so that it achieves exchange for desired outcomes.
more, both in terms of performance but also transformational leadership An inspirational method
members’ growth and satisfaction. The leader of leading others that involves elevating one’s followers’
who maintains the group’s status quo is a good motivation, confidence, and satisfaction, by uniting them
leader, but an excellent leader will elevate the in the pursuit of shared, challenging goals and changing
group. their beliefs, values, and needs.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 295
groups, organizations, and societies, but they also exception). Passive leadership does not, in many
transform themselves and their followers. cases, even qualify as leadership, for the so-called
leader is so uninvolved with the group and its
Measuring Transformational Leadership Indus- members that he or she does not meet the role
trial organizational psychologist Bernard Bass requirements of a “leader.”
(1997), drawing on Burns’s work, identified the
components of both transactional and transforma- Both transactional and transformational leaders
tional leadership and contrasted these two methods are more effective than passive leaders, but groups
with laissez-faire leadership. Most leaders, Bass sug- working with transformational leaders often achieve
gests, are transactional: They define expectations, the best results of all. A meta-analytic review of 87
offer rewards, “formulate mutually satisfactory studies concluded that transformational leadership
agreements, negotiate for resources, exchange assis- was more strongly associated with followers’ job sat-
tance for effort, and provide commendations isfaction, satisfaction with the leader, motivational
for successful follower performance” (Bass, 1997, levels, performance quality, and ratings of the lea-
p. 134). Transformational leaders, however, go der’s effectiveness than transactional leadership—
beyond rewards and punishments. These leaders although transactional leadership predicted these
tend to be self-confident and determined, and positive outcomes as well. Passive forms of leadership
their communications with their followers are usu- were unrelated to these outcomes or were negatively
ally eloquent and enthusiastic (Yammarino & Bass, related (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Meta-analysis also
1990). In contrast to both transactional and trans- suggests that women tend to be more likely to use
formational leadership, some leaders adopt a pas- transformational styles of leadership, whereas men
sive/avoidant, or laissez-faire, style. They point are more likely to enact laissez-faire and transactional
out members’ failings or ignore problems until styles (Eagly et al., 2003; Eagly & Johnson, 1990).
they become dire. Cross-cultural research supports Bass’s (1997) belief
that the transactional–transformational distinction
Bass and his colleagues developed the Multifactor applies across all world cultures. Last, confirming
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to measure these key the idea that “there is nothing so practical as a
components of transformational leadership (Avolio & good theory” (Lewin, 1951, p. 169), leadership
Bass, 1995; Bass, 1997). As summarized in Table 9.3, training programs based on the model have also
transformational leadership includes four basic compo- proven to be a relatively effective means of improv-
nents: the so-called 4Is of idealized, inspirational, ing performance in businesses and other organiza-
intellectual, and individualized consideration. Trans- tions (see Dvir et al., 2002).
formational leaders stand for something and make
their position clear to others in the group. They chal- 9-4e The Future of Leadership
lenge others to join them in their pursuit of exciting
endeavors, but at the same time, they provide each The future promises many changes in the nature
member with individualized support and consider- and application of leadership principles. As organi-
ation. They are, in a word, charismatic. zations continue to become more decentralized—
flatter rather than hierarchical—leadership methods
The MLQ also includes, however, measures of will likely shift from leader-centered approaches to
two other approaches to leadership: transactional group-centered ones. Also, the increase in the use
leadership and passive (or avoidant) leadership (see of information technologies likely will also change
Table 9.3). Transactional leadership is more rou- the way leaders interact with their followers, as tra-
tine, traditional leadership, for it involves monitor- ditional forms of leadership give way to new forms
ing members’ behaviors, providing them with of e-leadership (Avolio et al., 2009; Coovert &
rewards and corrections as needed, and stepping in Burke, 2005). Increases in diversity across groups
only when errors have occurred (management by
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
296 C H A P T E R 9
T A B L E 9.3 The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Idealized influence Transformational Leadership
Expressing one’s conviction clearly and emphasizing the importance of trust;
taking stands on difficult issues and urging members to adopt their values;
emphasizing the importance of purpose, commitment, and the ethical con-
sequences of decisions.
Inspirational motivation Articulating an appealing vision of the future; challenging followers with
high standards, talking optimistically with enthusiasm, and providing
encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done.
Intellectual stimulation Questioning old assumptions, traditions, and beliefs; stimulating in others
new perspectives and ways of doing things, and encouraging the expression
of ideas and reasons.
Individualized consideration Dealing with others as individuals; considering individual needs, abilities,
and aspirations; listening attentively and furthering individual members’
development; advising, teaching, coaching.
Transactional Leadership
Contingent rewards Providing rewards to followers contingent on performance, recognizing
achievements, and providing direction and positive feedback; defining
expectations, arranging mutually satisfactory agreements, and negotiating
for resources.
Management by exception (active) Supervising followers’ performances and intervening if they detect failures
to reach goals or maintain standards.
Avoidant/Passive Leadership
Passive management by exception Being uninvolved in the group activity until a serious problem occurs; not
taking action until mistakes are brought to their attention.
Laissez-faire Do not accept responsibility for the leadership role; often absent when
needed; ignoring their followers’ requests for help; not making their views
and values known to others. According to Bass, these individuals are not
leaders.
SOURCE: Paraphrased from Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national bound-
aries? American Psychologist, 52, pp. 133–134.
will also create challenges for leaders, particularly if leadership, but the sexes are equivalent when it
they must adapt their methods and style to match comes to providing members with task orientation
the varied needs of heterogeneous work groups and relational support (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani,
(Klein et al., 2011). Leaders of the future will not 1995). However, given that women tend to be par-
only be leading individuals, but also the many sub- ticipative and transformational leaders rather than
groups that exist within their groups and organiza- autocratic, laissez-faire, and transactional leaders
tions (Pittinsky, 2010). and given that these styles are more effective meth-
ods of leadership, as prejudicial biases give way to
The future may see increased numbers of fairer promotional practices, the Charlotte Beers of
women rising to positions of leadership in groups the world will become the standard rather than the
and organizations. As noted earlier, male and female exception.
leaders differ to a degree in their basic approaches to
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 297
CHAPTER REVIEW
What is leadership? among the leader, the followers, and the group
situation.
1. Leadership is an influence process in which
group members guide one another in the ■ Improved research procedures, such as
pursuit of individual and collective goals. longitudinal and rotational designs, have
provided clearer evidence of personality’s
■ Leaders influence followers both directly influence on leadership.
and indirectly.
■ The trait clusters in the five-factor model
■ Leaders and followers collaborate in the of personality and the dark triad (Machia-
pursuit of shared goals; people willingly vellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy)
accept a leader’s influence and prefer to be are related to leadership emergence and
led rather than to be leaderless. effectiveness.
■ Groups prosper when guided by good 2. Certain competencies are associated with lead-
leaders, but exaggerating their influence is ership emergence.
the romance of leadership fallacy.
■ Leaders tend to be relatively intelligent;
2. The two-factor model of leadership identifies their general mental ability is usually
two basic sets, or clusters, of leadership superior to that of their followers, but only
behavior: to a degree.
■ Task leadership focuses on the group’s ■ Emotional intelligence is related to leadership
work and its goals. emergence and effectiveness.
■ Relationship leadership focuses on the ■ Sternberg’s (2012) systems model of lead-
interpersonal relations within the group. ership stresses the importance of practical
and creative intelligence.
■ The Ohio State University Leadership
Studies identified these clusters, and the ■ Emergent leaders are generally more
Leader Behavior Description Question- experienced.
naire (LBDQ) assesses both task and rela-
tionship leadership. ■ People who speak more in groups are
likely to emerge as leaders (the babble effect),
3. Leadership substitutes theory describes situational although work by Jones and Kelly (2007)
and interpersonal factors that substitute for or suggests that quality of comments is more
neutralize the need for task and relationship influential than sheer quantity.
leadership.
3. Leaders tend to be older, taller, and healthier
4. Men tend to be more agentic and women than the average group member.
more communal, but this sex difference is not a
robust one. Similarly, women show a slight ■ Ethnic minorities and women are less
preference for leaderless groups. likely to be selected as leaders in groups.
The terms glass ceiling and leadership lab-
Who will emerge as a leader? yrinth suggests hidden situational and
interpersonal factors prevent women from
1. Paralleling Carlyle’s great leader theory and Tol- gaining leadership positions.
stoy’s Zeitgeist theory, early analyses of leadership
emergence adopted either a trait model or a sit- ■ The bias against women is ironic because,
uational model. An interactional approach, in in general, women possess more of the
contrast, examines the reciprocal relationships skills needed to be a successful leader.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
298 C H A P T E R 9
Why do some lead and others follow? Why are some leaders more effective than others?
1. Implicit leadership theory assumes beliefs 1. Leadership style theorists assume that effec-
about leaders and leadership—implicit leadership tiveness depends on the leader’s task and
theories—influence followers perceptual and relationship behaviors.
cognitive reactions to leaders and potential
leaders (Lord et al., 1984). ■ The Leadership Grid, proposed by Blake
and Mouton (1982), assumes that people
■ Most ILTs include task and relationship vary in their concern for results and in their
qualities. The prototype matching concern for people and that individuals
hypothesis suggests that individuals prefer who are high on both dimensions (9,9) are
leaders who match their ILTs, but ILTs the best leaders.
can distort members’ perceptions of and
reactions to their leaders. ■ The situational leadership® theory, pro-
posed by Hersey and Blanchard (1976),
■ The GLOBE studies, conducted by suggests that groups benefit from leadership
House and his colleagues (2004), that meshes with the developmental stage
identified a number of common of the group.
elements in ILTs worldwide, including
diplomatic, moral integrity, charismatic 2. Fiedler’s (1964) contingency theory suggests that
(inspirational and visionary), and team- leadership effectiveness is determined by the
oriented. leader’s motivational style and the favorability
of the situation.
2. Social identity theory predicts that leader
endorsement depends on leader prototypicality ■ The leader’s motivational style can be
and the members’ social identity. either task-motivated or relationship-
motivated, as measured by the Least
3. Eagly and her colleagues’ (1992) social role theory Preferred Coworker Scale.
maintains that stereotypes of sex roles and
leadership roles can create negative expecta- ■ Situational favorability is determined by
tions for women leaders. the leader–member relations, the task
structure, and the leader’s power.
4. Terror management theory (TMT) suggests that
individuals may have a deep-seated need for ■ Fiedler’s theory predicts that task-motivated
leaders, particularly in times of crisis, when (low-LPC) leaders will be most effective
mortality is salient. in situations that are either extremely
unfavorable or extremely favorable,
5. Evolutionary theory suggests that leadership whereas relationship-motivated leaders are
is an evolutionary adaptation that improves most effective in intermediate situations.
the fitness of both leaders and followers.
3. Leader–member exchange theory (LMX)
■ Leadership is a cooperative rather than focuses on the dyadic relationship linking the
dominance process, as illustrated by leader to each member of the group.
Chagnon’s (1997) studies of the
Yanomamö. ■ In many cases, two subgroups of linkages
exist (the inner group and the outer
■ The mismatch hypothesis suggests people group). Groups with more inner-group
sometimes instinctively respond to leaders in members are more productive.
less than optimal ways—as when favoring
males when facing intergroup conflict and ■ Members with a positive LMX are more
females when dealing with intragroup likely to engage in organizational citizenship
conflict. behavior.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
LEADERSHIP 299
4. Participation theories suggest that leadership 5. Transformational theories of leadership exam-
should be distributed throughout the group ine how charismatic leaders promote change.
rather than concentrated on a single
individual. ■ Burns (1978) distinguished between transac-
tional leaders and transformational leaders and
■ Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) com- suggested that the latter are able to elevate
pared three types of “group climates”: both themselves and their followers.
autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire.
Laissez-faire leadership was ineffective ■ Bass (1997) identified four components of
compared to democratic and autocratic, transformational (rather than transactional)
with members preferring democratic. leadership: idealized influence (or cha-
risma), inspirational motivation, intellec-
■ Shared leadership models, such as co- tual stimulation, and individualized
leadership, collective leadership, and peer consideration; they can be measured by the
leadership, encourage member-centered Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
leadership methods.
6. Women tend to adopt participative and trans-
■ Kelley’s (2004) theory of followership formational styles of leadership, whereas men are
suggests that followers vary along two more likely to enact autocratic, laissez-faire, and
dimensions: active/passive and indepen- transactional styles. Women’s skills are particu-
dent/dependent. He identifies five types of larly well suited for organizations of the future,
followers: conformist, passive, pragmatic, which will be less hierarchical and require a
alienated, and exemplary. collaborative, shared approach to leadership.
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: Charlotte Beers ■ Leadership in Organizations by Gary Yukl
(2013) is a masterful integration of theory,
■ Charlotte Beers at Ogilvy & Mather World- research, and application of leadership
wide by Herminia Ibarra and Nicole studies in businesses and organizations.
Sackley (2011) is a Harvard Business
School case study that describes the lead- Theoretical Perspectives
ership methods and decisions made by
Charlotte Beers as the Chief Executive ■ Leadership: Theory and Practice by S. Alex-
Officer and chairperson of a global ander Haslam, Stephen D. Reicher, and
corporation. Michael J. Platow (2015) examines the
major approaches to leadership taken by
■ I’d Rather Be in Charge by Charlotte Beers scholars in their study of leading and
(2012) is one leader’s personal philosophy following, beginning with Plato and
on leadership, interspersed with examples ending with contemporary perspectives.
of leadership triumphs and practical
advice. ■ Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The
GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, edited by
The Nature of Leadership Robert J. House, Paul J. Hanges, Mansour
Javidan, Peter W. Dormfan, and Vipin
■ Leadership by Michael Hogg (2013) is a Gupta (2004), describes in detail this
comprehensive but compact review of the monumental study of cultural values
major theories examining leadership and people’s perceptions of leadership.
emergence and effectiveness.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
300 C H A P T E R 9 ■ Through the Labyrinth by Alice Eagly and
Linda L. Carli (2007) examines closely
Women and Leadership the findings from hundreds of studies of
■ “Social Identities and Leadership” by women and leadership, including trends
Crystal L. Hoyt (2014) is a concise review in biases against women as leaders and
of research examining sex differences in differences between men and women in
leadership style and effectiveness, with a their leadership styles.
focus on the impact of sex stereotypes on
biases against women as leaders.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Performance
10C H A P T E R
CHAPTER OVERVIEW CHAPTER OUTLINE
People join with others in groups to get things 10-1 Social Facilitation
done. Groups are the world’s workers, protectors,
builders, decision makers, problem solvers, and idea 10-1a Performance in the Presence of Others
generators. From the simplest of situations where 10-1b Why Does Social Facilitation Occur?
each member works on a separate task with others 10-1c Conclusions and Applications
nearby to more complex ones requiring prolonged
collaboration, groups can accomplish goals that 10-2 Social Loafing
would overwhelm lone individuals. Not every
group reaches its full potential, but when highly 10-2a The Ringelmann Effect
motivated members work well together they can 10-2b Causes of and Cures for Social Loafing
master the most difficult of problems—even ones 10-2c The Collective Effort Model
that require creative, novel solutions. Creativity
comes naturally to groups. 10-3 Working in Groups
■ When and why does working in the presence 10-3a The Process Model of Group
of other people facilitate performance? Performance
■ When do people give their all when working 10-3b Additive Tasks
in a group? 10-3c Compensatory Tasks
10-3d Disjunctive Tasks
■ When do groups outperform individuals? 10-3e Conjunctive Tasks
10-3f Discretionary Tasks
■ What steps can be taken to encourage creativity 10-3g Process Gains in Groups
in groups?
10-4 Group Creativity
10-4a Brainstorming
10-4b Improving Brainstorming
10-4c Alternatives to Brainstorming
Chapter Review
Resources
301
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
302 C H A P T E R 10
The Miracle on the Hudson: Working with Others in Groups
US Airways Flight 1549 from New York’s LaGuardia turning back towards LaGuardia” (Sullenberger, 2009,
Airport to Charlotte, North Carolina, began unevent- p. 217). Harten initiated emergency procedures,
fully. The flight attendants helped the 150 passengers including communicating the problem to airport and
settle into their seats. The baggage handlers packed municipal emergency response personnel. The engines
the cargo hold of the Airbus A320 with luggage and would not restart, however, and the plane—now glid-
sealed the doors. Nothing was amiss as the two-man ing without any engine power—did not have enough
crew piloting the aircraft—Captain Chesley B. “Sully” altitude or speed to reach LaGuardia. Sully considered
Sullenberger and first officer Jeffrey B. Skiles— taking the plane to an airport he could see in the dis-
completed the preflight checklist. Flight 1549, with tance (Teterboro Airport), but decided he could not
Skiles at the controls, lifted off from Runway 4, and reach that airport, either. He radioed Harten, “We’re
the local controller passed the flight to Patrick Harten, gonna be in the Hudson.” Harten’s response: “I’m
the air traffic controller for LaGuardia departures. The sorry, say again, Cactus?” (Brazy, 2009, p. 39).
time was 3:26 PM.
New Yorkers watched as the A320, traveling at
Less than five minutes later, the Airbus A320 was about 150 MPH, splashed down in the middle of the
sinking in the freezing waters of the Hudson River. Hudson River, just south of the George Washington
The cause: The aircraft, during its ascent from take- Bridge. The ditching damaged the underside of the
off, collided with a flock of geese, severely damaging aircraft, which began sinking as water flooded the rear
both engines. The A320 was designed to be flyable of the passenger cabin. Sully gave the order to evacu-
with a single engine functioning, but the loss of two ate, and the passengers exited as quickly as they could
engines was catastrophic. Sully, who was more expe- onto the wings and an emergency slide at the front
rienced flying the A320, immediately started the exit. Within minutes, a flotilla of rescue vessels assem-
auxiliary power unit before telling Skiles, “My bled around the aircraft, and the passengers and crew
aircraft.” Skiles responded, “Your aircraft,” before were pulled from the icy water to safety. Some
turning his attention to restarting the damaged required hospitalization, but not a single life was lost.
engines (Brazy, 2009, p. 38). The media dubbed the event the “Miracle on the
Hudson,” and the crew members were awarded the
Sully radioed ground controller Harten: “Mayday. Master’s Medal of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navi-
Mayday. Mayday. This is, uh, Cactus fifteen thirty-nine. gators for their skillful handling of this emergency.
Hit birds. We’ve lost thrust in both engines. We’re
Flight 1549 is a study of groups that get things This chapter examines these kinds of groups—
done. The three flight attendants worked together ones whose members are working together to pro-
to seat all the passengers and review with them the duce something or reach a goal—by asking three
steps they should follow in case of an emergency. important questions. First, are we better together?
The pilots executed a series of complex, interde- Much of the work we do does not require collab-
pendent tasks that changed from the routine to oration, yet we often prefer to do that work with
the exceptional after the bird strike. As the emer- others rather than alone. Does the presence of other
gency unfolded, air traffic controllers and airport people facilitate our performance, and if it does,
personnel working the incident communicated why? Second, do many hands make light the work?
with each other, identifying and readying alterna- Certainly groups can do more than single
tive landing locations. When the plane ditched in individuals—what with more people to bear the
the river, other groups swung into action: Fire- load—but do we give our all when working in
fighters, the Coast Guard, ferry boat crews, and groups? Do groups bring out the best in us, or are
search and rescue teams converged on the scene. our groups places where we can, and do, loaf?
The passengers, too, worked together as they Third, when are two heads better than one? Do groups
escaped the doomed aircraft and waited in the always outperform individuals, or does their superi-
freezing January weather for help to arrive. ority depend on the type of task the group is
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 303
attempting? For example, are groups particularly creates a partial vacuum that pulls followers along
good at finding creative, unusual solutions to while also breaking down wind resistance. But
problems, or do they tend to remain entrenched Triplett was also interested in identifying what he
in their traditional ways of thinking? Chapters 11 called “dynamogenic factors”:
and 12 examine groups working as teams and
making decisions, respectively, but this chapter The bodily presence of another rider is a
explores productivity and performance in all stimulus to the racer in arousing the competi-
types of groups—from the simplest situation tive instinct; that another can thus be the means
(two people working side by side on separate of releasing or freeing nervous energy for him
tasks) to more complex forms of productive that he cannot of himself release; and, further,
interdependency. that the sight of movement in that other by
perhaps suggesting a higher rate of speed, is also
10-1 SOCIAL FACILITATION an inspiration to greater effort. (p. 516)
When the last passenger on Flight 1549 was seated To eliminate the possibility of drafting, he arranged
and the flight attendants closed the door, first officer for 40 children to perform a simple reel-turning task
Skiles completed the preflight checklist and taxied in pairs and when alone (see Figure 10.1). His study
to the departure runway. The procedures Skiles fol- was a success, for he was able to confirm the positive
lowed were complex ones, but they were very impact of working in the presence of other people:
familiar to him, for during his long career as a social facilitation. The children in pairs outper-
pilot he had flown thousands of take-offs at airports formed those who worked alone (see Strube, 2005,
all over the United States. Skiles, however, was not for a reanalysis of Triplett’s data).
alone in the cockpit. Captain Sullenberger was
seated beside him, completing a second set of pro- Coaction, Audiences, and Inconsistencies Tri-
cedures required at take-off, but also monitoring plett studied a coaction situation: people working
Skiles’ actions. Did Sully’s presence influence Skiles’ in the presence of other people, but not necessarily
performance? interacting with one another. People digging sep-
arate holes in a field, taking a test in a classroom, or
10-1a Performance in the riding bicycles with friends are common coaction
situations. But researchers soon discovered that
Presence of Others social facilitation also occurs when individuals per-
form in the presence of an audience. One investi-
Norman Triplett’s 1898 study of people’s reactions gator, for example, studied the effects of an
to other people was one of the first experiments audience by recording how much weight men
ever conducted in psychology. Triplett’s (1898) could lift when exercising. Men who were
inspiration: bicycle races. In some events, cyclists watched when they were working out could lift
raced alone and their performance was timed. heavier weights (Meumann, 1904).
Other events were competitions with cyclists racing
each other. In a third type of race, a rider was paced Other studies, however, did not confirm
by a motor-driven cycle. Invariably, riders achieved the “presence of people improves performance”
their best times when they competed or they were effect. Social psychologist Floyd Allport (1920),
paced, and they were slowest when racing alone.
Triplett wondered why. social facilitation An improvement in task performance
that occurs when people work in the presence of other
Triplett knew about drafting: riders are faster people.
when biking with others because the lead cyclist coaction Performing a task or another type of goal-
oriented activity in the presence of one or more other
individuals who are performing a similar type of activity.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
304 C H A P T E R 10
B
C
D
A
F I G U R E 10.1 The “competition machine” used by Triplett in his research examining the positive influence of
competition on performance. Triplett is still recognized for his noteworthy contribution to the scientific study of
groups, even though a reanalysis of his findings using modern statistics indicated the differences between the condi-
tions he studied were not very substantial. In all likelihood, had he performed his study today instead of in 1898, his
fellow researchers would have sent him back to his laboratory to find more convincing evidence of those mysterious
dynamogenic factors (Strube, 2005).
for example, arranged for participants to complete actions, such as solving difficult math problems
tasks twice—once while alone in a small testing or writing poetry, usually found little evidence of
cubicle, and once with others at a table. To reduce social facilitation.
competition, Allport cautioned participants not to
compare their scores with one another, and he also Zajonc’s insight was that the presence of others
told them that he himself would not be making increases the tendency to perform dominant
comparisons. He found that people in groups pro- responses and decreases the tendency to perform
duced more than isolated individuals, but their pro- nondominant responses. If the dominant response is
ducts were often lower in quality. Likewise, other the correct or most appropriate response in a partic-
researchers sometimes reported gains in perfor- ular situation, then social facilitation occurs; people
mance through coaction or when an audience was will perform better when others are present than
watching, but they also documented performance when they are alone. If the task calls for nondomi-
decrements (Aiello & Douthitt, 2001). nant responses, then the presence of other people
interferes with performance (see Figure 10.2). Imag-
Zajonc’s Resolution Confusion reigned until ine that you must memorize some pairs of words. If
Robert Zajonc (1965) explained why different the pairs are common associations, such as blue–sky
studies yielded such divergent results. Some beha- or clean–dirty, then the task is an easy one, for
viors, he noted, are easier to learn and perform which the dominant response is correct. Hence,
than others. These dominant responses are located your performance will be better if other people
at the top of the organism’s response hierarchy, are present. If, however, you are trying to learn
so they dominate all other potential responses. some uncommon associations—such as blue–
Behaviors that are less likely to be performed are dynamogenic or clean–nondominant—then you are
nondominant responses. Zajonc noticed that required to make a nondominant response and an
researchers documenting social facilitation studied audience will hurt more than help.
well-learned or instinctual responses, such as lifting
weights, bicycling, or eating rapidly. Studies Speed, Quantity, and Quality Many studies,
involving novel, complicated, or unpracticed including those listed in Table 10.1, have confirmed
the relationship between task complexity and social
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 305
Presence Dominant Task requires Social Performance
of others responses dominant facilitation gain
increase and responses
nondominant Social Performance
responses Task requires inhibition loss
decrease nondominant
responses
F I G U R E 10.2 Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation.
T A B L E 10.1 A Sampling of Empirical Demonstrations of Social Facilitation
Situation Findings
Dressing
People performed a familiar task (taking off their own shoes and socks) faster if another
person was in the room, and even faster if watched by an observer. They took longer to
finish a less familiar task (putting on a robe that tied in the back) when another person
watched them (Markus, 1978).
Driving Individuals seeking their license to drive an automobile took their driving test with only
the tester or with another test-taker seated in the rear seat. Forty-nine percent of the
applicants passed the test when alone, but only 34% passed when an audience was pres-
ent (Rosenbloom et al., 2007).
Handwriting College students copied a word list using their dominant hand (easy task) or nondominant
hand (hard task). The computer screen where they worked displayed an image of a favorite
television personality or another character from the same program. If the task was easy,
they wrote more words in the presence of their favorite character; if the task was difficult,
the favorite character inhibited their performance (Gardner & Knowles, 2008).
Jogging The path taken by solitary women joggers passed by a woman who either watched them
as they ran or sat facing away from them. Joggers accelerated when they encountered
the watchful observer (Worringham & Messick, 1983).
Playing pool People playing pool were surreptitiously watched to identify skilled and unskilled players.
When the observer moved near the pool table and openly watched their play, skilled
players’ performance improved 14% but unskilled players’ performance deteriorated by
more than 30% (Michaels et al., 1982).
Resource acquisition Children used a candy and fruit dispenser when alone, when observed by another child, or in
the presence of another child also using a dispenser (coaction). Children worked harder
(acquired more candy) in the coaction and observer conditions. Similarly trained chimpanzees
worked harder only in the coaction condition (Engelmann, Herrmann, & Tomasello, 2016).
Security screening Individuals using a baggage security scanner screened luggage containing fewer items
more quickly than luggage with multiple items, and this tendency was more pronounced
when they were observed by another person. Presence of an observer did not influence
the accuracy of their screening (Yu & Wu, 2015).
Speaking On a writing task most people (93%) produced more words when another person was
present than when they were alone (Allport, 1920). When this study was replicated with
individuals who stuttered when they spoke, 80% of the subjects produced more words
when alone rather than with another person (Travis, 1928).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
306 C H A P T E R 10
Is Social Facilitation a Uniquely Human Phenomenon?
Social facilitation is not limited to Homo sapiens: horses, another roach, or when watched by other
puppies, chickens, mice, rats, monkeys, armadillos, ants, cockroaches—although we cannot be sure the spectator
beetles, and opossums are on the list of species that roaches actually watched. They were sealed in small
show signs of increased performance in the presence of plastic boxes adjacent to the mazes, with air holes
other members of their species. Even the lowly cock- allowing air to circulate between spectator and subject.
roach will work harder when surrounded by other
cockroaches. As anyone who has surprised a roach in Zajonc’s findings were consistent with the findings
the kitchen late at night knows, cockroaches run from from studies of humans. In the simple maze, single
bright lights. So Zajonc and his colleagues (1969) roaches reached home base in an average of 40.6 sec-
designed two mazes with a start box near a light and a onds. Coacting roaches trimmed 7.6 seconds off this
goal box hidden from the light. One maze was easy, time, returning in just 33 seconds flat. This tendency
even for a roach—just a straight runway from start to reversed when the maze was complex: Single roaches
the goal. The second maze was more complex: the crawled to the finish line 19.6 seconds faster than did
roaches had to turn to the right to reach their goal. coacting roaches. Roaches watched by an audience
Zajonc then timed how quickly 72 roaches (Blatta were the slowest contestants of all, but they were par-
orientalis) completed the mazes when alone, when with ticularly slow when the maze was complex—taking
nearly 2 minutes longer than single roaches.
facilitation. Novice drivers perform more poorly occurred when people worked on complex tasks
when an audience is present in the car. Individuals (Bond & Titus, 1983).
dress more quickly when another person is present,
provided they are putting on familiar articles of 10-1b Why Does Social
clothing. Right-handed people can write faster
with that hand when another person is present, Facilitation Occur?
but even more slowly if they are trying to write
with their left hand. Social facilitation has even The situations studied by Triplett and Zajonc
been documented in other species. Cockroaches, barely qualify as groups, for they involved strangers
horses, puppies, chickens, mice, rats, monkeys, working on individualized tasks without any inter-
armadillos, ants, beetles, and opossums are on the action, influence, shared identity, or common goals.
list of animals that show signs of increased perfor- Yet, even these circumstances were sufficient to
mance in the presence of other members of their trigger psychological and interpersonal processes
species (Clayton, 1978). When researchers that sometimes facilitated, and sometimes interfered
reviewed hundreds of studies of over 24,000 with, performance (see Aiello & Douthitt, 2001;
humans meta-analytically, they concluded that Monfardini et al., 2016).
social facilitation is most likely to occur on tasks
where speed and quantity matter more than accu- Drive Processes Zajonc coined the word compre-
racy. So long as the task is a simple one, people tend sence to describe the state of responding in the pres-
to work more quickly when others are present, and ence of others. Compresence, he hypothesized,
the result is a small, but consistent, uptick in pro- touches off a basic arousal response in most social
ductivity. The presence of other people interferes species “simply because one never knows, so to
with speed, however, when the task is complex, so speak, what sorts of responses—perhaps even
other people significantly inhibited both the quan- novel and unique—may be required in the next
tity and quality of their performance. Overall, the few seconds” when others are nearby (Zajonc,
gains that occurred when people worked together 1980, p. 50). Zajonc believed that compresence in
on simple tasks were not as great as the losses that and of itself elevated drive levels that triggered
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 307
social facilitation when tasks were so easy that only whereas the threat response inhibits it (Blascovich
dominant responses would be needed to perform et al., 1999).
them.
Neurological Processes Social neuroscientists
Zajonc’s drive theory uniquely predicts that also trace social facilitation back to a physiological
social facilitation will occur even when all forms of process, but locate that process in the brain itself.
social interaction, communication, and evaluation Since humans are a social species, we are neuro-
between the individual and the observer are logically prepared to monitor and respond to
blocked. Investigators tested this hypothesis by other individuals and groups. This so-called
asking people to work on simple or complex “social brain” includes mechanisms that sustain
tasks in the presence of an “observer” who was and promote our capacity to perceive and under-
blindfolded and wore earplugs. Even though the stand other people, and respond to them appro-
observer could not interact with participants in any priately (e.g., Tremblay, Sharika, & Platt, 2017).
way, his mere presence still enhanced their perfor- When a task is a simple one, this activation of the
mance when they worked on simple tasks and slo- attentional and reward centers of the social brain
wed their performance on complex ones (Schmitt facilitate performance, but when the task is more
et al., 1986). difficult, the social brain interferes with perfor-
mance (Monfardini et al., 2016). In one study
Physiological Processes Zajonc’s drive theory that tested this hypothesis, researchers confirmed
suggests that people react, physiologically, to the that the presence of another person activated a
presence of people—but the magnitude of this specific area of the brain associated with social
change depends on the type of situation and on cognition (the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex),
who is watching. For example, James Blascovich and that this increase was associated with inhibited
and his colleagues (1999), in their studies of the performance on complex, but not simple, tasks.
threat/challenge model, have verified that an audi- This study found relatively few effects of other
ence triggers increases in cardiac and vascular reac- physiological processes, such as heart rate and
tivity. Blascovich’s team also discovered, however, blood pressure, on performance, prompting the
that this arousal is physiologically very different investigators to conclude that it is the brain, and
when people work on an easy task rather than not the heart, that overreacts to the presence of
on a hard one. As noted briefly in Chapter 2, others (Ito et al., 2011).
when we are confident we can master a problem
or difficulty, we tend to display a challenge response. Motivational Processes The 49-year-old Skiles
At the physiological level, we appear to be ready earned his pilot license when he was 16. With
to respond to the challenge that we are facing over 20,000 hours logged as a commercial pilot,
(elevated heart rate and sympathetic nervous sys- he was nearly as experienced as the plane’s captain,
tem activation). More daunting tasks, in contrast, Sully. But Skiles had only recently completed his
may trigger a threat response; we display a stress training for this particular aircraft, and this was his
reaction instead of a challenge response. The chal- first flight without an instructor. Skiles and Sully
lenge response facilitates our performance, did not know each other particularly well, for they
had only begun working together as a flight crew
drive theory In general, an analysis of human motiva- four days earlier on the first leg of their seven-leg
tion that stresses the impact of psychological or physio- flight rotation. As Skiles maneuvered the plane
logical needs or desires on individuals’ thoughts, feelings, along the tarmac, he knew that Sully was watching
and actions; also an explanation of social facilitation that his every move.
maintains that the presence of others evokes a general-
ized drive state characterized by increased readiness and Psychologist Nickolas Cottrell (1972) suggested
arousal (proposed by Robert Zajonc). that this evaluative pressure is one of the reasons why
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
308 C H A P T E R 10
people tend to be more productive in the presence drive levels. When people find themselves in eval-
of others. His evaluation apprehension theory uative situations, they tend to perform dominant
assumes that most of us have learned through expe- rather than nondominant responses (Seta et al.,
rience that other people are the source of the 1989). When, for example, individuals who were
rewards and punishments we receive. So we associ- watched by an observer were told that the observer
ate social situations with evaluation, and feel appre- was evaluating them, their performance improved,
hensive whenever other people are nearby. This but only when they were working on a simple task
evaluation apprehension enhances our performance (Bartis, Szymanski, & Harkins, 1988). When people
on simple tasks, but it becomes debilitating when we who had already failed once tried the task a second
attempt more difficult projects. Cottrell thus believed time, they performed worse when others were
that apprehension, and not the arousal response present (Seta & Seta, 1995). Also, situational factors
identified by Zajonc, is the source of social facilita- that decrease evaluation apprehension, such as
tion effects. allowing for private responses, nonevaluative audi-
ences, and the absence of a definable task that can
Sociologist Erving Goffman’s (1959) analysis of be evaluated, often eliminate social facilitation
self-presentational processes, noted in Chapter 6, effects (Henchy & Glass, 1968).
also underscores the motivational impact of impres-
sion management pressures. Self-presentation The presence of other people—even friends
theory assumes each of us actively controls others’ who we can count on for social support—can
impressions of us by displaying social behaviors that increase physiological reactivity in some circum-
establish and maintain a particular social image, or stances. When women performed a difficult math
face. We do not want the others to think that we test with a friend who was merely present—the
possess negative, shameful qualities and characteris- friend could touch the participant’s wrist but was
tics, so we strive to make a good impression. Per- preoccupied with another task and was wearing a
formance situations create self-presentational headset that blocked all sound—the participant’s
challenges for us, however, particularly when we cardiovascular responses were lowered. But when
feel we might fail. To avoid that embarrassment, their friends watched them as they worked on dif-
we redouble our efforts when self-presentational ficult math problems, most people showed signs of
pressures are strong—as they were in the cockpit physiological arousal rather than relaxation
when Skiles was piloting and Sully was watching (Kamarck, Manuck, & Jennings, 1990). In fact,
(Bond, Atoum, & VanLeeuwen, 1996). people are more relaxed when they are with their
pets rather than with other people. Pets are an ideal
Researchers have tested, and in many cases source of social support, for they provide reassur-
confirmed, the primary hypothesis that derives ance through their presence but they do not (we
uniquely from such motivational models—that assume) evaluate their owner’s performance (Allen
any stimulus increasing the organism’s apprehension et al., 1991; Allen, Blascovich, & Mendes, 2002).
over future rewards or punishments should increase
Other findings, though, do not support this
evaluation apprehension theory An analysis of perfor- emphasis on evaluation. Even when the companion
mance gains in groups arguing that individuals working refrains from attending to the individual in any
in the presence of others experience a general concern way, social facilitation still occurs (Berger, 1981;
for how these others are evaluating them and that this Platania & Moran, 2001). Also, social facilitation
apprehension facilitates their performance on simple, occurs in animals that likely lack the capacity to
well-learned tasks. feel nervous or embarrassed—rats, armadillos, and
Self-presentation theory An analysis of performance roaches, for example. Moreover, activities that
gains in groups assuming that social facilitation is caused involve little threat of evaluation, such as eating,
by individuals striving to make a good impression when drinking, or getting dressed, still show social facili-
they work in the presence of others. tation effects.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 309
Attentional Processes Zajonc stressed drive by helping people narrow their focus of attention
levels, Cottrell underscored the importance of eval- and by filtering out the distracting color name cue
uation, but several cognitive theories have sug- (Huguet et al., 1999). The effect may also be due to
gested that the presence of others changes people’s (a) the extra cognitive demands imposed on parti-
capacity to process information adequately. When cipants by the presence of the observer and the
people work in the presence of other people, they need to evaluate the task itself (Klauer, Herfordt,
must split their attention between the task they are & Voss, 2008) or (b) the increased attentional focus-
completing and the other person (Guerin & Innes, ing on the task that is triggered by a threat of self-
1982). The presence of an audience may also evaluation (Normand, Bouquet, & Croizet, 2014).
increase individuals’ self-awareness, and, as a result,
they may focus their attention on themselves and Cognitive Processes When Sully announced
fail to pay sufficient attention to the task (Mullen & “my aircraft” and took control of the mortally
Baumeister, 1987). wounded Airbus A320, his mind was busy calculat-
ing any number of possible courses of action, fac-
Distractions, however, do not inevitably toring in the craft’s altitude and speed, distance to
undermine performance. Distraction–conflict available airports, the hazards of a waterlanding, the
theory suggests that distraction interferes with the number of civilians on the ground who could be
attention given to the task, but that these distrac- injured, and so on. But the stress of the situation
tions can be overcome with effort. Therefore, on undoubtedly influenced how he processed that
simple tasks that require dominant responses, the information, helping him to narrow his focus to
interference effects are inconsequential compared concentrate on his best options while ignoring
with the improvement that results from concentrat- untenable alternatives.
ing on the task so performance is facilitated. On
more complex tasks, the increase in drive is insuffi- Social psychologist Stephen Harkins’ (2006)
cient to offset the effects of distraction, and perfor- mere-effort model (or, more precisely, the Threat-
mance is therefore impaired (Baron, 1986; Bond Induced Potentiation of Prepotent Reponses model) sug-
et al., 1996; Sanders, Baron, & Moore, 1978). gests that the gains and losses in performance we
exhibit when we work on simple and complex
Consider, for example, the effect of an audi- tasks are due, in part, to changes in the way we
ence on people performing the famous (in psychol- process information. Harkins agrees with other
ogy, at least) Stroop task. In the Stroop task, researchers who note that evaluation usually triggers
participants are shown a color name (e.g., Red or increases in effort: when we think we are being
Blue) printed in a primary color (such as red or blue) evaluated, we work harder. This increased effort
and are asked to name the color of the ink. For causes us to concentrate more on ideas and infor-
example, if the word Red is printed in blue ink, mation that are readily accessible to us, and if this
the participant should answer blue. When the ink information is relevant to the task at hand, then
and the color word match, people have no pro- facilitation will occur. However, if this information
blems. But when the ink and the color word are is not relevant, then thinking about this information
incongruent, reaction time and errors increase. But will inhibit our performance (Seitchik, Brown, &
these errors decrease when individuals complete the Harkins, 2016).
task with others. The presence of others may work
To test this hypothesis, Harkins (2006) mea-
Distraction–conflict theory An analysis of perfor- sured the performance of individuals who worked
mance gains in groups assuming that when others are pres- on simple and complex versions of the Remote
ent, attention is divided between the other people and the Associates Test—the RAT. Each item on the
task; this attentional conflict increases motivation, and it RAT consists of three words, and the test-taker’s
facilitates performance on simple, well-learned tasks. task is to provide a single word that the three stim-
ulus words have in common. A simple RAT item
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
310 C H A P T E R 10
would be birthday–playing–shark, since the correct apprehensively, for they feel inhibited and threat-
answer (card) is a close associate of all three words ened by other people. People may be capable of
in the list. A complex RAT item, such as elephant– adopting either orientation in a given situation, but
lapse–vivid, is more difficult because the correct people like Sully are naturally positive in their orien-
answer (memory) is a remote rather than close asso- tation toward tasks. Others, in contrast, possess per-
ciate, and so the test-taker must discard the close sonality traits that prompt them to be more negative,
associates and search for more distant ones to such as low self-esteem, self-consciousness, anxiety,
solve the problem. and neuroticism. A meta-analysis of previous studies
of social facilitation, focusing only on those studies
Harkins discovered that evaluative pressures that included measures that might be indicators of
improve performance on simple RATs but slowed participants’ degree of positive or negative orienta-
performance on complex RATs, as evaluation tion, supported the theory. Individuals with qualities
apprehension theory would suggest. But he also that suggested their social orientation was positive
discovered that this effect occurs because the evalu- usually showed social facilitation effects, whereas
ative pressure increased the availability of close those with a negative orientation showed a social
associates (the “pre-potent responses”), which interference effect (Uziel, 2007, 2010, 2015).
were only correct when people were working on
the simple RAT. People could solve the more 10-1c Conclusions and Applications
complex RAT items, but they needed time to
move beyond the close associates that came to Social facilitation occurs because humans, as social
mind so easily. beings, respond in predictable ways when joined by
other members of their species (see Table 10.2).
Personality Processes Sully, in the months fol- Some of these reactions, as Zajonc suggested, are
lowing the crash, became a public figure: He very basic ones, for the mere presence of other
appeared on talk shows, testified before Congress, people elevates drive levels. But arousal becomes
accepted awards and accolades from various groups, more substantial when group members realize that
and even threw out the first pitch at a couple of the people around them are evaluating them and
baseball games. He took it all in stride, rising to might form a negative impression of them if they
each occasion as he did when he landed Flight perform badly. Cognitive and personality mechan-
1549 on the Hudson. isms that govern how individuals process informa-
tion and monitor the environment also come into
Social orientation theory suggests that peo- play when people work in the presence of others.
ple differ in their overall orientation toward social As the following examples illustrate, these physio-
situations, and these individual differences in social logical, motivational, cognitive, and personality
orientation predict who will show facilitation in the processes influence group members’ reactions across
presence of others and who will show impairment. a wide range of performance settings.
According to this theory, individuals who display a
positive orientation are so self-confident that they Prejudice and Social Facilitation Prejudices are
react positively to the challenge the group may deeply ingrained negative attitudes about the mem-
throw their way. Others, in contrast, display a nega- bers of other groups. Such prejudices as racism and
tive orientation. They approach social situations sexism are increasingly recognized as unfair and
socially inappropriate, so individuals who are pre-
Social orientation theory An analysis of performance judiced often try to keep their prejudices to them-
gains in groups suggesting individual differences in social selves to avoid being labeled a racist or sexist. But
orientation (the tendency to approach social situations prejudice is often a well-learned, dominant response;
apprehensively or with enthusiasm) predict when social ironically, the presence of other people may lead
facilitation will occur.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 311
T A B L E 10.2 Theoretical Explanations of Social Facilitation and Supporting Evidence
Processes Theoretical Assumptions Evidence
Drive processes
The mere presence of others elevates ■ Social facilitation occurs when other
drive levels, resulting in social facilita- people are “merely” present.
tion when tasks are so easy that only
dominant responses are needed to per- ■ Many species perform basic tasks
form them (Zajonc, 1965). more efficiently in the presence of
other species’ members.
Physiological and Humans exhibit increased physiological ■ People show signs of physiological
neurological processes (e.g., arousal and heightened social atten- arousal when others are present.
threat/challenge theory) tiveness in the presence of other
humans, and these reactions sometimes ■ Brain monitoring studies confirm that
facilitate performance (e.g., Blascovich the cortical regions responsible for
et al., 1999). processing social information are
activated in the presence of other
people.
Motivational processes Through experience, people learn to ■ The presence of others is facilitative
(e.g., evaluation apprehension associate the presence of others with only when the observers can evaluate
theory and self-presentation evaluation; this evaluation apprehen- the quality of the performance.
theory) sion facilitates performance on well-
learned tasks (Cottrell, 1972). ■ Facilitative effects are strongest when
individuals are striving to make a
good impression.
Cognitive processes (e.g., When others are present, attention is ■ Recall is poorer when a stimulus is
distraction–conflict theory divided between the other people and presented in the presence of others,
and mere-effort model) the task; attentional conflict increases suggesting others are distracting.
motivation, which facilitates perfor-
mance so long as the task is a simple ■ Facilitation is reduced if the others in
one (Baron, 1986; Harkins, 2006). the situation are not noticed.
■ The presence of others improves per-
formance on interference tasks (e.g.,
the Stroop Task and the RAT).
Personality processes (e.g., Individuals who display a positive ■ The presence of others improves per-
social orientation theory) interpersonal orientation and are more formance among individuals with
motivated to present themselves posi- high self-esteem and low neuroticism.
tively to others are more likely to show
social facilitation effects (Uziel, 2007). ■ Those with an attention-seeking ten-
dency (exhibitionism) perform better
than self-conscious individuals in
coaction settings.
individuals to express even more biased opinions that they prefer to eat with others rather than
when they are in public rather than in private. dine alone (Higgs & Thomas, 2016). When
The presence of others may work to facilitate prej- researchers ask people to keep track of how much
udice, rather than keep it in check (Lambert et al., and with whom they eat, they usually find that
1996, 2003). people eat more—sometimes 40–50% more—
when they dine in groups (Herman, 2015). As
Eating in Groups The presence of other people meals eaten by groups are longer in duration than
facilitates one of the most dominant of basic those eaten by solo individuals, people have more
responses in humans: eating. Most people report opportunity to keep eating when in groups than alone.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
312 C H A P T E R 10
Watching someone else eat also increases social imita- another, or search databases for stored information,
tion of the eating response. When the participants in their activity can be monitored automatically; as
one study witnessed another person eating 20 soda many as 75% of all companies in the United States
crackers, they ate far more crackers themselves than use that data to monitor the performance of their
did participants who saw someone eat only one employees (Zweig & Scott, 2007).
(Nisbett & Storms, 1974). People even seem to prepare
relatively larger portions for meals to be eaten in Does EPM enhance performance, or does it create
groups than individually, as if they anticipate that the so much evaluation anxiety that performance suffers?
group members will be able to consume more than Aiello found that EPM may enhance employees’ pro-
they would if alone. So long as the group does not ductivity, but in ways that are consistent with social
include a substantial portion of dieters, the group may facilitation effects. He studied people working on a
continue to eat until all the available food is con- data entry task. Some were alone, some were working
sumed. Solitary eaters are more likely to eat only with others, and some were members of a cohesive
until they are sated (Herman, Roth, & Polivy, group. Aiello discovered that EPM enhanced the per-
2003). Larger groups trigger greater increases in eating, formance of highly skilled workers, but interfered with
although at a decreasing rate, similar to response pat- the performance of less skilled participants. Monitoring
terns suggested by social impact theory (Latané, 1981). also increased workers’ feeling of stress, except among
those who were part of a cohesive work group. Indi-
Groups do not always facilitate eating, how- viduals responded more positively to monitoring when
ever. The social facilitation of eating is weak when they believed that they could turn off the monitoring
co-eaters are strangers or disliked, and strongest and that only their job-related activities were being
when people dine with families and friends. The monitored, as well as when they had the opportunity
social facilitation of eating is also limited to coaction to participate in decisions about the use of the moni-
rather than audience situations. People eat more toring system (Zweig & Scott, 2007).
when others with them are eating, but they tend
to eat less when the other people who are present Social Facilitation in Educational Settings
are observing them (Herman, 2015). Much can be learned when one is alone, but
many learning activities are group activities. Stu-
Electronic Performance Monitoring Social dents can read and study in isolation, but more fre-
facilitation is not limited to face-to-face, or collo- quently a class of learners is assembled in one place
cated, group settings. The presence of others in a with the hope that learning will occur en masse.
virtual sense—made possible when people join
with others via computers, telephones, or other But even though learning in a social context is
communication systems—can also enhance perfor- a common practice, the presence of other people
mance on simple tasks but undermine performance may actually inhibit the acquisition of new concepts
on complicated ones. Social psychologist John and skills. Others can be distracting, and, during the
Aiello, for example, drew on studies of social facili- early phases of learning, this distraction can interfere
tation in his analyses of electronic performance with overt and covert practicing. When the parti-
monitoring, or EPM (Aiello & Douthitt, 2001; cipants in one project needed to learn a list of
Dohthitt & Aiello, 2001). When workers use their words, they were too embarrassed to rehearse the
computer to enter data, communicate with one material by saying it aloud, and their performance
suffered (Berger et al., 1981, 1982). Studies of ath-
electronic performance monitoring, or EPM The letes acquiring new skills, students learning a second
use of information technologies, such as computer net- language, and clinicians developing their therapeu-
works, to track, analyze, and report information about tic skills have indicated that learning proceeds more
workers’ performance. rapidly, at least initially, when learners work alone
(Ferris & Rowland, 1983; MacCracken & Stadulis,
1985; Schauer, Seymour, & Geen, 1985).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 313
Do You Prefer to Learn Alone or in a Group?
Many educators take advantage of the motivational and pedagogical benefits of groups in their teaching. When
students work and learn together in groups, they can pool their knowledge and abilities, give each other feed-
back, and tackle learning tasks too overwhelming to face alone. Group assignments, even if they are not the
most efficient way to learn specific facts and information, help students develop a rare interpersonal skill—that
of working effectively with others in groups.
Group approaches to learning, however, are not enthusiastically embraced by everyone. One survey of col-
lege students found that many had taken classes that used group-based experiences, but only 32% of the stu-
dents rated their small-group experiences positively in terms of learning outcomes (Hillyard, Gillespie, & Lettig,
2010). For every person who enjoys studying in groups is another person who has spent too much time in a dis-
tracted, unproductive group. Are you, personally, pro or con learning in groups?
Instructions: For each of the statements, indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree by circling a
number where:
1 ¼ Strongly disagree 3 ¼ Neither agree nor disagree 5 ¼ Strongly agree
2 ¼ Moderately disagree 4 ¼ Moderately agree
1. I prefer to study for classes by myself. 12345
2. Study groups waste too much time discussing things unrelated to class. 12345
3. I mainly depend on myself, rarely on others when it comes to my learning. 12345
4. Most study groups fail due to a lack of leadership in the group. 12345
5. I have a negative opinion of study groups. 12345
Scoring: Add your answer to all five items to yield a total. A score of 15 is close to the average score, but if
your total is less than 11 you are relatively positive about studying in groups; if your score is above 19: you are
no fan of learning collectively. But there is hope. Now that you have far more insight into groups and their
dynamics, you can take steps to maximize your next learning group’s efficiency.
Zajonc (1965, p. 274), however, suggests that security, maintenance, transportation, and so on.
once students have learned their skills well, then The work of these groups is often outstanding, but
they should perform with others present if possible anyone who has traveled has likely encountered a
(Utman, 1997). He recommends the student: group that was neither efficient nor effective. Captain
Sullenberger, describing his own experience in the
study all alone, preferably in an isolated cubicle, industry, writes: “The gate agent hasn’t pulled the
and arrange to take his examinations in the jetway up to the plane in time. The skycap is sup-
company of many other students, on stage, and posed to bring the wheelchair and hasn’t…. The
in the presence of a large audience. The results caterer hasn’t brought all the first-class meals…. You
of his examination would be beyond his wild- get tired of constantly trying to correct what you
est expectations, provided, of course, he had corrected yesterday” (Sullenberger, 2009, pp. 158–
learned his material quite thoroughly. 159). Some groups, it seems, are not so intent on
maximizing their productivity.
10-2 SOCIAL LOAFING
10-2a The Ringelmann Effect
Modern air travel requires not only the services of
the group of pilots who fly the planes, but dozens of Max Ringelmann (1913), a nineteenth-century
other groups also who handle service, ticketing, French agricultural engineer, was one of the first
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
314 C H A P T E R 10
researchers to study group productivity. Ringel- Potential
mann’s questions were practical ones: How many
oxen should be yoked in one team? Should you 80 productivity
plow a field with two horses or three? Can five Productivity
men turn a mill crank faster than four? But Ring-
elmann, instead of speculating about the answers to loss
these questions, set up teams of varying sizes and 70
measured their collective power.
60 Actual
Productivity Losses in Groups Ringelmann’s productivity
most startling discovery was that workers—and that Performance
includes horses, oxen, and men—all become less 50
productive in groups. A team pulling a rope in a
tug-of-war contest is stronger than a single opponent 40 Obtained
but the group does not usually work at maximum output
efficiency. When Ringelmann had individuals and
groups pull on a rope attached to a pressure gauge, 30
groups performed below their predicted potential pro-
ductivity. Working alone, a single person could pull an 20
average of 85.3 kg. But, when working with six other
people, they could pull 390 kg, which is only 65 kg per 10
person: a reduction of nearly 24% of their pulling
power. Larger groups were even less productive, 0 7-man groups 14-man groups
with each member pulling only 61.4 kg per person Individuals
(see Figure 10.3). Groups certainly outperformed indi-
viduals, but as more and more people were added, the F I G U R E 10.3 The Ringelmann effect. Ringelmann
group became increasingly inefficient. To honor its (1913) found that the level of productivity of each
discoverer, this tendency for groups to become less group member decreased when they worked in groups
productive as group size increases is now known as of 7 and 14.
the Ringelmann effect (Ingham et al., 1974; Kravitz
& Martin, 1986 present an excellent summary and SOURCE: From Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animes:
interpretation of Ringelmann’s work.) Travail de homme [Research on animate sources of power: The work of
man]. Annales de I’lnstitut National Agronomique, 2e serie—tome XII, 1–40.
Ringelmann believed that this reduction in pro-
ductivity had two sources. First, coordination losses, or often sang together in an attempt to synchronize their
“the lack of simultaneity of their efforts,” introduced efforts and minimize coordination losses. Second,
inefficiencies into each group (Ringelmann, 1913, motivation losses were also sapping group productivity:
p. 9). Even on a simple task, such as rope pulling, People did not work as hard when they were in
people tend to pull and pause at different times, groups rather than alone. After watching a group of
resulting in some process loss and a failure to reach prisoners turning the crank of a flour mill, for exam-
their full productive potential. Ringelmann’s groups ple, he noted that their performance was “mediocre
because after only a little while, each man, trusting in
Ringelmann effect The tendency, first documented by his neighbor to furnish the desired effort, contented
Max Ringelmann, for people to become less productive himself by merely following the movement of the
when they work with others; this loss of efficiency increases crank, and sometimes even let himself be carried
as group size increases, but at a gradually decreasing rate. along by it” (p. 10; translation from Kravitz &
Martin, 1986, p. 938). This reduction of effort by
individuals working in groups is now known as
social loafing (Williams, Harkins, & Latané, 1981).
Many Hands Make Light the Work Bibb Latané,
Kipling Williams, and Stephen Harkins disen-
tangled the effects of both coordination loss and
social loafing The reduction of individual effort exerted
when people work in groups compared to when they
work alone.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 315
social loafing in a series of cleverly designed studies. Performance Potential
They told the men they recruited for their groups productivity
that they were researching “the effects of sensory Motivation
feedback on the production of sound in social 8 loss
groups” and that all they needed to do was to
cheer as loudly as they could. They asked the par- Pseudogroups
ticipants to wear blindfolds and headsets, so their productivity
performance would not be influenced by “the 6 Coordination
effects of sensory feedback” (1979, p. 824). They loss
then asked participants to shout as loudly as they
could while the headsets played a stream of loud 4
noise. Consistent with the Ringelmann effect, Actual groups
groups of participants made more noise than indi-
viduals, but groups failed to reach their potential. Obtained productivity
When the participants were tested alone, they aver-
aged a rousing 9.22 dynes/cm2 (about as loud as a 2 output
pneumatic drill). In dyads, each participant shouted
at only 66% of capacity and in six-person groups at 0 6
36% of capacity. This drop in productivity is 012
charted in Figure 10.4 (Latané, Williams, & Harkins, Group size
1979, Experiment 2, p. 826; see also Harkins,
Latané, & Williams, 1980; Williams et al., 1981). F I G U R E 10.4 Social loafing and coordination
losses in groups. Latané and his colleagues disentangled
But how much was this drop in productivity the two major causes of productivity losses in groups by
due to social loafing and how much due to coordi- leading people to think they were working in groups
nation problems? Latané and his colleagues separated when they actually were not. The people in these
out these sources of process loss by testing noise pro- “groups” (labeled “Pseudogroups productivity”) suffered
duction in “pseudogroups.” In these conditions, par- from motivation loss, but not from coordination loss since
ticipants were led to believe that either one other they were actually working alone. The shaded portion
participant or five other participants were shouting represents motivation loss (social loafing) and the
with them, but in actuality, they were working unshaded portion represents coordination loss.
alone. (The blindfolds and headsets made this decep- They combine to create the Ringelmann effect.
tion possible.) Thus, any loss of production obtained
in these pseudogroup conditions could not be due to DATA SOURCE: Adapted from “Many hands make light the Work: The
coordination problems, because there were no other Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing,” by Latané, B., Williams, K., &
group members shouting. Instead, any decline in Harkins, S., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1979.
production could only be blamed on the reduced
effort brought about by social loafing. As 10-2b Causes of and Cures
Figure 10.4 indicates, when participants thought
that one other person was working with them, for Social Loafing
they shouted only 82% as intensely. If they thought
that five other persons were shouting, they reached People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental
only 74% of their capacity. These findings suggest tasks—including brainstorming, evaluating employ-
that even if work groups are so well organized that ees, monitoring equipment, interpreting instruc-
virtually all losses due to faulty coordination are tions, and formulating causal judgments—have
eliminated, actual productivity will not equal the been shown to exert less effort when they combine
potential productivity due to social loafing. their efforts in a group situation. Even worse, loaf-
ing seems to go unrecognized by group members.
When people in groups are asked if they are work-
ing as hard as they can, they generally claim that
they are doing their best, even though the objective
evidence indicates that they are loafing. Evidently,
people are not aware that they are loafing, or they
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
316 C H A P T E R 10
are simply unwilling to admit it (Karau & Williams, they know their applause will not be missed. Many
1993). Fortunately, researchers have identified a students avoid group projects where the entire group
number of steps that can be taken to reduce the receives the same grade, because inevitably one or
level of social loafing in a group. more members of the group will not do their share
of the work (Hoffman & Rogelberg, 2001).
Increase Identifiability Studies of social loafing
suggest that people are less productive when they All these situations invite free riding—members
work with others. But studies of social facilitation, doing less than their share of the work because others
discussed earlier in this chapter, find that people are will make up for their slack. Although norms of fair-
more productive when others are present (at least ness warn members to do their part, if they feel that
when the task is easy). Which is it? the group does not need them or their contribution,
they will be tempted to free-ride. They are also more
Both. When people feel as though their level likely to free ride if they suspect the other group
of effort cannot be ascertained because the task is a members aren’t working very hard. Rather than look-
collective one, then social loafing becomes likely. ing like a “sucker” by working harder than the others,
But when people feel that they are being evaluated, group members reduce their efforts to match the level
they tend to exert more effort and their productiv- they think other group members are expending. This
ity increases. If the task is an individualistic one, and sucker effect is strongest when they feel that their
is easy, social facilitation occurs. But when group fellow group members are competent but lazy (Hart,
members are anonymous and their contributions Bridgett, & Karau, 2001).
are unidentifiable, the presence of others reduces
evaluation apprehension, and social loafing The effects of free riding can be minimized by
becomes more likely (Harkins & Szymanski, 1987, reducing the size of the group, strengthening the
1988; Jackson & Latané, 1981). group’s performance norms, sanctioning those
who contribute too little, and increasing members’
Researchers illustrated the importance of evalua- sense of indispensability: individuals who feel that
tion by asking the members of four-person groups to their contribution to the group is unique or essen-
generate as many ideas as possible for a common tial for the group’s success work harder (Kerr &
object. The participants did not discuss their ideas out Bruun, 1983). For example, when researchers stud-
loud but simply wrote them on slips of paper. Some of ied the performances of swimmers competing on
the participants thought that their ideas were individu- relay teams in the 2008 Olympics, they discovered
ally identifiable, whereas others thought that their ideas that athletes who held the anchor spot on the team
were being collected in a common pool. Moreover, showed performance gains when swimming in the
some participants believed that everyone was devising relay. Swimmers who started the relay, swimming
uses for the same object, but others thought that each in either the first or second positions, did not swim
group member was working with a different object. In any better than they did when competing as indi-
this study, loafing occurred not only when ideas were viduals (Hüffmeier & Hertel, 2011).
pooled, but also when the participants believed that
their individual outputs were not comparable or Set Goals Groups that set clear, challenging goals
could not be evaluated (Harkins & Jackson, 1985). outperform groups whose members have lost sight
Loafing was reduced when each individual member’s
output was identifiable (Hardy & Latané, 1986; Kerr & free riding Contributing less to a collective task when
Bruun, 1981; Williams et al., 1981). one believes that other group members will compensate
for this lack of effort.
Minimize Free Riding Thousands of people listen sucker effect The tendency for members to contribute
to public radio without making a contribution when less to a group endeavor when they expect that others will
the radio asks for donations. Some audience members think negatively of anyone who works too hard or con-
do not clap during the call for an encore because tributes too much (considering them to be a “sucker”).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 317
How Many Pickles Could a Pickle Packer Pack If Identifiable?
Many groups work on tasks as a team, and so mem- the jars pile up at the workers’ stations while they
ber’s individual inputs are often inseparable: who did look for pickles of the appropriate length, so
what is not clearly known. This intermixing can result stuffers have a great temptation to stuff whatever
in a loss of productivity, as Kipling Williams and his pickles come readily at hand. The individual out-
colleagues (1981, p. 310) explain in their analysis of puts of the stuffers are unidentifiable, since all jars
performance procedures in the pickle processing plant: go into a common hopper before they reach the
quality control section. Responsibility for the out-
[In a pickle packing plant] a key job is stuffing dill put cannot be focused on any one worker. This
pickle halves into jars. Only dill halves of a certain combination of factors leads to poor performance
length can be used. Those that are too long will and improper packing. The present research sug-
not fit and those that are too short will float and gests making individual production identifiable
dance inside and look cheap and crummy. The dill and raises the question, “how many pickles could
halves and the jars are carried on separate high- a pickle packer pack if pickle packers were only
speed conveyor belts past the contingent of pickle paid for properly packed pickles?”
stuffers. If the stuffers don’t stuff quickly enough,
of their objectives (Kleingeld, van Mierlo, & quality service, his wife described him as a “pilot’s
Arends, 2011). When truck drivers who hauled pilot” (p. 276). People like Sully do not loaf in
logs from the woods to the mill were initially told groups. When researchers first screened people on
to do their best when loading the logs, the men a set of questions that measured their approach to
only carried about 60% of what they could legally work—the Protestant Ethic Scale—they discovered
haul (Latham & Baldes, 1975). When the drivers people with high scores loafed very little. Such sen-
were later encouraged to reach a goal of 94% of timents as “People who fail at a job have usually not
the legal limit, they increased their efficiency and tried hard enough” and “There are few satisfactions
met this specific goal. In a study of groups generat- equal to the realization that one has done his best at
ing ideas, members were more productive when a job” are antithetical to not doing one’s share of
they had a clear standard by which to evaluate the the work (Smrt & Karau, 2011). Individuals who
quality of their own work and the group’s work enjoy competition and working with others in
(Harkins & Szymanski, 1989). Members of sports groups are also less likely to loaf (Stark, Shaw, &
teams with norms that stress goal pursuit (e.g., Duffy, 2007).
“we don’t give up during adversity in a competi-
tion”) loaf less than teams with lower performance In general, the more engaged people are in the
standards (Høigaard, Säfvenbom, & Tønnessen, group or the group’s work, the less likely they will
2006, p. 222). The group’s goals should also be loaf. So long as the competition remains “friendly,”
challenging rather than too easily attained. The group members may persevere with much greater
advantages of working in a group are lost if the intensity when they are vying with others in the
task is so easy that it can be accomplished even if group for the best score (Hinsz, 2005). Challenging,
the group loafs, so care should be taken to set the difficult tasks reduce loafing, but so do those that
standards high—but not so high that they are unat- will determine group members’ personal
tainable (Hinsz, 1995; Weldon & Weingart, 1993). outcomes—either by reward or by punishment
(Brickner, Harkins, & Ostrom, 1986; Shepperd,
Increase Involvement Sullenberger (2009) was 1993, 1995). Social loafing is also reduced when
very involved in his work as a pilot. Hardworking, rewards for successful performance are group-
attentive to detail, and serious about providing based rather than individually based—so long as
the group is not too large in size (DeMatteo, Eby,
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
318 C H A P T E R 10
& Sundstrom, 1998) and the reward is divided in the group, then social loafing is replaced by social
nearly equally among all the group members laboring as members expend extra effort for their
(Honeywell-Johnson & Dickinson, 1999; Liden group. Individuals sometimes work hard when
et al., 2004). When large groups are split into they think “This task is important to me,” but
smaller ones, members loaf less (Pentland, 2014). they are likely to work even harder when they
think “This task is important to us” (Haslam,
Involvement may even prompt group mem- 2004).
bers to compensate for the expected failures or
incompetencies of their fellow group members by Increasing identification with the group elimi-
expending extra effort. Williams and Karau (1991) nates social loafing even in relatively short-term
documented social compensation by convincing groups. When researchers assembled volunteers into
individuals that their group’s task was a meaningful three-person groups and had them complete two
one, but that the motivation of other group mem- time trials—one short and one long—on stationary
bers was in doubt (apparently because one of the bicycles, they cycled more slowly in groups than
other experimenters considered the research topic they did when they were tested individually. But
to be boring). Participants were also led to expect when the groups were led through a series of
that their partners were either skilled or unskilled at identity-building activities that included generating
the task. Williams and Karau discovered that people a team name and slogan before the trials, results
worked hardest when the task was meaningful and were more impressive. The groups cycled just as
the members believed that their coworkers’ ability quickly in their group as they had when cycling
was minimal. A field study of loafing in a classroom individually—so no social loafing—on the shorter
setting even suggests that a high level of involve- trial, and they even outperformed their individual
ment may trump the sucker effect. If students’ scores on the longer trials—exhibiting social labor-
grades were on the line, when they discovered ing (Høigaard et al., 2013).
that one of their group members was a loafer,
they tended to work harder themselves, rather 10-2c The Collective Effort Model
than reducing their own effort to look less like a
sucker (Liden et al., 2004). Karau and Williams’s (1993, 2001) collective
effort model (CEM) provides a comprehensive
Increase Identification with the Group Social theoretical framework for understanding the causes
identity theory also suggests a way to reduce loaf- and cures of social loafing. Drawing on classic
ing: increase the extent to which group members expectancy-value theories of motivation, they sug-
identify with their group or organization (Haslam, gested that two factors determine group members’
2004). Social identity theory suggests that the dif- level of motivation: their expectations about reach-
ference between a hardworking group and a loafing ing a goal and the value of that goal. Motivation is
group is the match between the group’s tasks and its greatest when people think that the goal is within
members’ self-definitions. If people are working their reach (expectations are high) and they con-
together but the group and its tasks have no mean- sider the goal to be valuable. Motivation diminishes
ing to them, they care very little if their group suc- if expectations are low or individuals do not value
ceeds or fails. But when individuals derive their the goal. Working in a group, unfortunately, can
sense of self and identity from their membership diminish both expectations about reaching a goal
social compensation The tendency for group members collective effort model (CEM) A theoretical explana-
to expend greater effort on important collective tasks to tion of group productivity that traces losses of productiv-
offset the anticipated insufficiencies in the efforts and ity in groups to diminished expectations about successful
abilities of their comembers. goal attainment and the diminished value of group goals
(developed by Steven Karau and Kipling Williams).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 319
Is Your Group at Risk for Social Loafing?
Even in the best groups members may not be per- Goals
forming up to their potential; not because members
are having difficulty working as a team, but because q This group’s goals are not clearly defined.
social loafing steals away their motivation. Asking
members if they are working as hard as they can will q It’s difficult to tell when we are making progress
not provide you with valid information about loafing, toward our goals.
since most people don’t notice that they are not
working as hard in the group as they would if they q This group’s goals are not challenging at all.
were alone. Instead, look for the warning signs of lost
motivation listed here. Involvement
Instructions: From the many groups to which you q This group isn’t one that means very much to its
belong, identify the one where members are working members.
to achieve a collective goal of some type, such as a
team at work, a study group, or even a group of q It’s hard to predict who will show up for this
friends planning a social event. Then put a check by group’s meetings and events.
each item that accurately describes your experiences
in this group. q If a group member falls behind in this group,
that’s his or her problem.
Identifiability
Identification
q People who work hard in this group don’t get
credit for that. q Hardly anyone in the group feels strongly about
the group’s purpose.
q This group doesn’t keep track of who does what.
q The members don’t identify strongly with this
q Most people in this group don’t have any specific group and its goals.
responsibilities.
q No one really cares if this group is a great
Free-riding success.
q Some members are not contributing very much to Scoring: If you checked two of the three indica-
this group. tors in any one set, your group is displaying signs that
its productivity may be limited by social loafing. What’s
q We have a couple of members who do tons of the solution? Use the methods that researchers have
work for the group. identified as effective (e.g., increased identifiability,
involvement, indepensibility, and identification) to
q Even if some of us don’t work hard, our group will counteract these performance-limiting conditions,
still reach its goals. focusing on the problem areas you identified on this
checklist.
and the value that is placed on that goal. In groups, Karau and Williams tested the CEM’s predictions
the link between our effort and the chance of suc- in a meta-analysis. Their review of 78 studies sup-
cess is ambiguous. Even if we work hard, others ported their basic theoretical contention that loafing
may not, and the group may fail. Moreover, even is reduced if individuals’ expectations for success are
if the group does succeed, we personally may not high and they feel that the goal they are seeking is a
benefit much from the group’s good performance. valuable one. They also identified a number of other
Earning a good grade on a project completed by a consistencies that emerged across studies. For example,
group may not be as satisfying as earning a good loafing was greater among men than women, in
grade on a project that we complete working on Western countries compared to Eastern countries,
our own. and for simple tasks rather than complex tasks.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
320 C H A P T E R 10
10-3 WORKING IN GROUPS their personal resources, including their talents,
skills, and effort. But when individuals join together
Groups tend to lose some of their productivity due to work in groups, their performance depends on
to social loafing, but they usually outperform indi- each individual’s resources plus the interpersonal
viduals. A lone individual in a tug-of-war with a processes that determine how these resources are
group will lose. Individuals racing each other will combined. Even Sully and Skiles—experienced,
run faster than they would if racing against the well trained, and highly motivated—did not coor-
clock. A group taking a multiple-choice test will dinate their actions perfectly during the emergency.
probably get a higher score than an individual tak- In consequence, their potential productivity did not
ing the same test. Three flight attendants will be match their actual productivity.
able to seat and service 150 passengers far more
effectively than only one could. Potential Productivity 6¼ Actual Productivity
In Steiner’s (1972, p. 8) model, task-related processes
But how well do groups perform on more are the steps group members take as they complete a
complex tasks that require coordination and collab- task, including “all those intrapersonal and interper-
oration? Companies and businesses must monitor, sonal actions by which people transform their
regulate, and organize the activities of hundreds of resources into a product, and all those nonproductive
employees—should they organize their workers actions that are prompted by frustration, competing
into teams? When quality matters, will a single, motivations, or inadequate understanding.” Although
dedicated craftsperson build a more beautiful prod- a group’s potential productivity (PP) can be predicted by
uct than a work crew that must plan each action as determining if its resources match the requirements of
raw construction materials are transformed into a the task it is attempting, process loss (PL)—the grit in
finished product? Mountaineers can climb alone, the interpersonal machinery of a working group—
but can they reach the highest peaks only by work- determines how effectively the group makes use of
ing with others? When do groups outperform its resources. Steiner’s “law” of group productivity
individuals?
AP ¼ PP À PL
10-3a The Process Model of Group
predicts that actual productivity (AP) is determined by
Performance a group’s potential productivity (PP) less all the pro-
cess losses (PL) the group experiences. Some groups
Ivan Steiner (1972), in his classic work Group Process may have great potential: Members are highly
and Productivity, drew on the concept of process motivated, well trained, and they have all the skills
loss to predict when groups will perform well or the group will need to master the task. Yet, even
poorly. Steiner recognized that groups have great though the group has the potential to be successful,
potential, for their resources outstrip those of any it may still fail because it fails to combine these
single individual. But Steiner also realized that resources effectively or efficiently.
groups rarely reach their full potential because no
group can perfectly coordinate its resources, mem- Task Demands Steiner recognized that many
bers, and processes. When individuals work by factors combine to determine a group’s potential
themselves, their performance depends strictly on productivity, but he highlighted one factor over all
others: the type of task the group is attempting.
process loss A reduction in performance effectiveness or A group working on an assembly line, for exam-
efficiency caused by actions, operations, or dynamics that ple, must combine members’ efforts in ways that
prevent the group from reaching its full potential, differ from the combination process used by a
including reduced effort, faulty group processes, coordi- team playing baseball or pilots flying a commercial
nation problems, and ineffective leadership. jetliner. Some tasks, Steiner explained, require
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 321
T A B L E 10.3 A Summary of Steiner’s Taxonomy of Tasks: Types, Qualities, and Examples
Divisibility: Can the task be broken down into subtasks?
Divisible The task has subcomponents that can be ■ Playing a football game
identified and assigned to specific members. ■ Preparing a six-course meal
Unitary The task does not have subcomponents. ■ Pulling on a rope
■ Reading a book
Quantity versus quality: Is quantity produced more important than the quality of the performance?
Maximizing Quantity: The more produced the better ■ Generating many ideas
the performance. ■ Lifting a great weight
■ Scoring the most goals
Optimizing Quality: A correct or optimal solution is ■ Developing the best answer
needed. ■ Solving a math problem
Interdependence: How are individual inputs combined to yield a group product?
Additive Individual inputs are added together. ■ Pulling a rope
■ Shoveling snow
Compensatory A decision is made by averaging together ■ Estimating an ox’s weight by asking three
individual decisions. people to guess and averaging their guesses
■ Averaging ratings of job applicants
Disjunctive The group selects one solution or product ■ Picking one answer to a math problem to be the
from a pool of members’ solutions or group’s answer
products.
■ Letting one art project represent the entire
school
Conjunctive All group members must contribute to the ■ Climbing a mountain
product for it to be completed. ■ Eating a meal as a group
Discretionary The group decides how individual inputs ■ Deciding to shovel snow together
relate to the group product. ■ Choosing to vote on the best answer to a problem
SOURCE: Adapted from Group Processes and Productivity by I. D. Steiner. © 1972 by Academic Press.
high levels of coordinated activity but others do that they vary depending on the divisibility of the
not; even if group members make little or no task, the type of output desired, and the combina-
attempt to adapt their actions to match those of tion rules required to complete the task (see
others, the group will still succeed. Steiner called Table 10.3).
the combination processes dictated by the problem
or group activity the task demands and suggested ■ Divisibility: Some tasks are divisible—they can
be broken down into subtasks that can be
task demands A problem or task’s features, including its assigned to different members—whereas other
divisibility and difficulty, that influence the procedures tasks are unitary. Building a house, planting a
the group can use to complete the task. large garden, or working a series of math pro-
blems by assigning one to each group member
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
322 C H A P T E R 10
are all divisible tasks, because the entire task can relative to individuals can be predicted with more
be split into parts. unitary tasks, however, can- accuracy.
not be divided: Only one painter is needed for a
small closet in a house, only one gardener can 10-3b Additive Tasks
plant a single seed, and only one person is needed
to solve a simple math problem. On the surface, additive tasks are the easiest types
of tasks for a group to complete. Since they are
■ Quantity vs. quality: Some tasks call for a high both divisible and maximizing, group members
rate of production (maximization), whereas need only add their contribution to the group’s
others require a high-quality, correct outcome output, so coordination demands are minimal. So
(optimization). With maximizing tasks, long as each group member can perform his or her
quantity is what counts. In a relay race, tug- assignment—such as pulling on a rope, editing an
of-war, or block-stacking problem, perfor- online encyclopedia, cheering at a football game,
mance depends on sheer quantity; the emphasis developing two slides for a PowerPoint presenta-
is on maximal production. For optimizing tion, clapping after a concert, responding to cus-
tasks, a good performance is the one that most tomer complaints in a call center, or raking leaves
closely matches a predetermined criterion. in a yard—the productivity of the group will prob-
Examples of optimizing tasks include estimat- ably exceed the productivity of a single individual.
ing the number of beans in a jar or coming up
with the best solution to a problem. Studies of both social facilitation and social
loafing, however, warn that working on additive
■ Interdependence: Members’ contributions to the tasks is more complicated than it seems. If working
group task can be combined in different ways. On in the presence of others, people may perform their
an assembly line, for example, the members piece of the additive task particularly well—but
perform a specific task repeatedly, and the only if their subtask is a relatively simple one. Peo-
product is finished when each member has ple shucking green beans together on the front
made his or her contribution. The members of a porch may work more effectively than individuals
rock band, in contrast, all play and sing together, working separately, but once the task gets more
so each member’s contribution must mesh with challenging, the benefits of social facilitation will
the other members’ contributions. Steiner likely be negligible. Social loafing is also likely
(1972) describes five basic combinatorial strate- given the structure of an additive task. Adding
gies: additive, compensatory, disjunctive, conjunctive, more and more members will increase a group’s
and discretionary. productivity when it works on an additive task,
but at an ever decreasing rate of gain.
By taking into account the type of task the
group is attempting, the performance of groups 10-3c Compensatory Tasks
divisible tasks A task that can be broken down into When groups attempt compensatory tasks, the
subcomponents that can then be assigned to individuals members average their individual judgments or
or to subgroups within the group.
unitary tasks A task that cannot be performed piecemeal additive tasks A task or project that a group can com-
because it does not break down into any subcomponents. plete by cumulatively combining individual members’
maximizing tasks A task or project that calls for a high inputs.
rate of production. compensatory tasks A task or project that a group
optimizing tasks A task or project that has a best solu- can complete by literally averaging together (mathe-
tion and outcome, thus the quality of the group’s perfor- matically combining) individual members’ solutions
mance can be judged by comparing the product to a or recommendations.
quality-defining standard.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 323
solutions together to generate an answer. For exam- sufficient number of responses, the compensatory
ple, each one of the passengers of Flight 1549 could method requires a large enough number of judg-
be contacted and asked to estimate how long it took ments to compensate for any extreme judgments.
to rescue them from the cold waters of the Hudson
after the crash. The estimates could then be averaged Swarm Size and Problem Difficulty Crowds
to generate a group judgment, which could be com- may be wise, but what happens when they encoun-
pared to the actual time taken: only 24 minutes ter a very difficult problem (Krause et al., 2011)?
(Miracle on the Hudson Survivors, 2009). Researchers in Germany tested the limits of
“swarm intelligence” by asking visitors to a science
The Wisdom of Crowds Effect Legendary exhibit to step up to a computer console and enter
nineteenth-century polymath Francis Galton was in their best guesses for two questions. One prob-
surprised by the accuracy of groups when making lem was easy: All they had to do was estimate the
compensatory decisions. Known for his studies of number of marbles in a jar next to the computer
intelligence, Galton questioned whether a group console. The second problem was more difficult:
could possibly make more accurate judgments than “Estimate how many times a coin needs to be
an expert. He had the opportunity to test his hypoth- tossed for the probability that the coin will show
esis when he came across a “Guess the Weight of an heads each time to be roughly as small as that of
Ox” contest at a local fair. Each contestant estimated winning the German lotto” (p. 942). Statisticians
the ox’s weight, and the person who came closest to who were also active lotto players may have
the ox’s actual weight won a prize. Galton took the known that it would take about 24 consecutive
estimates home and examined them, expecting that heads to equal the very remote chances of winning
the crowd would be far off the mark. Yet, the weight the lottery (1 in 35 million), but most visitors found
of the ox was 1,198 pounds, and the average of the the second question to be very challenging.
judgments of the 800 contestants was 1,197, confirm-
ing the wisdom of the crowd effect (Surowiecki, 2004). The crowd was quite wise when answering the
Some people overestimated the ox’s weight, but easy question. The mean for the group was 553.6,
others underestimated, so the group judgment, coming within 1.5% of the actual number of mar-
which was an average of all the estimates offered, bles (562). But the crowd’s average estimate for the
was more accurate than the judgments made by second question, 498 flips of the coin, was not
experts and by most of the individuals. accurate at all, suggesting a crowd will not be
wise when its members lack the knowledge needed
Crowds are wiser than individuals for at least to solve the problem. These findings also affirmed
two reasons. First, the compensatory method is rela- the importance of recruiting enough people to
tively immune to group process loss caused by poor form the crowd (see Figure 10.5). Even for the
coordination, loafing, or undue influence of the per- easy question (shown in the top chart), groups
suasive but unwise. In face-to-face groups, those with ten members or fewer were not as accurate
who are well respected by the group—but not nec- as the majority of the individual members. Groups
essarily any better informed—often sway the group’s that ranged in size from 10 to 40 members outper-
decision. They do not when groups work on com- formed most of the individuals in the group, but
pensatory tasks—provided the group members make not the top 25% of individuals. Once the group
their judgments independently of others. Second, a included more than 40 members, the group’s accu-
statistically derived group score is more accurate racy surged past most of the group’s members, but
because it is based on multiple measures. When sin- this effect occurred only for the relatively easy esti-
gle individuals make multiple estimates, and their mation problem. Estimates for the difficult prob-
estimates are averaged, their judgments are also lem, shown in the lower chart in Figure 10.5,
more accurate (Brennan & Enns, 2015). Because of were always inferior to individual member’s
the importance of basing the final estimate on a scores—because so many of the group members’
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
324 C H A P T E R 10
Accuracy 100 Group
Easy problem Top 25%
75 Above
average
50
25
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
100 Top 25%
Difficult problem
75
Accuracy 50 Above
average
25
0 Group
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
F I G U R E 10.5 The “wisdom of the crowd” when attempting an easy problem (top chart) and a difficult problem
(bottom chart). Scores could range from 0, indicating low accuracy, to 100, indicating high accuracy. The three plotted
lines correspond to the “group” estimate (black diamond lines), the average score of randomly picked individuals from
the top half of the distribution (gray triangles), and the average score of randomly picked individuals from the top
25% of the estimators (gray circles).
SOURCE: From “Swarm Intelligence in Humans: Diversity Can Trump Ability,” by Krause, S., James, R., Faria, J. J., Ruxton, G. D., & Krause, J., Animal Behavior,
81, 941–948, 2011.
estimates were massively incorrect. Errors did not When groups work at disjunctive tasks, they
have a chance to cancel each other out. These must generate a single solution that will stand as the
and other findings suggest that compensatory deci- group’s outcome. Juries making decisions about
sional methods can often be improved by identify- guilt or innocence, computer technicians deciding
ing the wiser ones in the crowd, and then which program bug to fix first, or the coaching staff
weighting their estimates more heavily than the setting the lineup for the day’s game, are all per-
rank-and-file crowd members when aggregating forming disjunctive tasks. These types of tasks tend
the results (Budescu & Chen, 2014). to be both unitary and optimizing, for they cannot
be broken down into subtasks, and they require a
10-3d Disjunctive Tasks high-quality or correct solution rather than a large
quantity of product.
Sully, Skiles, and Harten had a decision to make.
Without power, Flight 1549 needed a place to Disjunctive tasks often require discussion and
land. Harten, the air traffic controller, favored a decisions; Chapter 12 provides a more detailed
return to LaGuardia. Skiles did not express any analysis of how groups tackle such tasks. In general,
preference. Sully initially considered the nearby
Teterboro airport, but then changed his choice to disjunctive tasks A task or project that is completed
the Hudson. There could be only one solution— when a single solution, decision, or recommendation is
they could not switch to Plan B if Plan A failed. adopted by the group.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 325
Who Is Flying the Plane?
Commercial jetliners are not piloted by individuals, but copilot eventually failed to correct the pilot’s error on
by groups. No one individual could carry out the many the approach, and the plane crashed (Tarnow, 2000). A
and varied actions needed when taxiing, at takeoff, copilot on a flight involved in a near miss—two aircraft
when aloft, in final approach, and when landing, so almost colliding in midair—warned the captain to
the captain and crew work together to pilot the plane reduce airspeed, but the captain ignored him
safely to its destination. In some cases, however, crews (Foushee, 1984).
experience process losses due to poor communication,
errors in judgment, fatigue, and power dynamics. The The aviation industry, in an attempt to reduce
flight deck of an aircraft is called the cockpit for a process loss, responded to these problems by develop-
reason; it takes its name from the pen where contests ing and instituting crew resource management (CRM)
between fighting roosters (cocks) are held (Foushee, programs. Initially, only the cockpit crew received
1984). training, but the program was soon expanded to
include the entire crew (Bienefeld & Grote, 2014). The
Although Skiles and Sully worked well together, training generally involves structured exercises dealing
the formal lines of authority in the airline industry with communication, team formation, situation
sometimes cause groups to make mistakes—with fatal awareness, and workload management. Through
results (Helmreich & Foushee, 2010). The National workshops, structured group activities, and simula-
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), by analyzing tions, copilots learn how to challenge errors made by
flight recorder data, traced several airline crashes back the pilot, and pilots are encouraged to accept warn-
to two group-level sources: (1) a captain’s refusal to ings from crew members rather than ignore them.
comply with the suggestions of other crew members Many airlines carry out team-based training using
and (2) the crew’s excessive obedience to the captain’s advanced flight simulators (line-oriented flight train-
authority (National Transportation Safety Board, ing, or LOFT), which deliberately simulate emergencies
1994). When a DC-8 ran out of fuel and crashed near that can only be solved if the crew members commu-
Portland, the flight recorder indicated that the flight nicate clearly and decisively with the captain. CRM
engineer repeatedly reminded the pilot of their dwin- programs have been credited with significantly
dling fuel, but the pilot ignored him (Milanovich et al., increasing the safety of air travel and have been
1998). The pilot of Northwest Express Flight 5719 spent implemented in other industries to enhance perfor-
much of the flight issuing orders to the first officer, mance and safety (Ginnett, 2010; Kanki, Helmreich, &
many of which were considered unnecessary. The Anca, 2010; Salas et al., 2006).
however, groups perform disjunctive tasks better during the group’s deliberations, was the one the
than most of the individual members. For example, group adopted (wins).
if four students complete a quiz as a group, the
group will likely outscore most of the individual Truth, however, does not always win, for in
students because more heads means more informa- some cases even though the correct answer is
tion and better detection of errors. In an actual class known by at least one group member, the group
where students were permitted to take tests in pairs fails to select it as the group’s solution. Rosa may be
or alone, pairs scored nearly 4% points higher than certain that the answer to the question “Who first
individuals (Pandey & Kapitanoff, 2011). documented the reduction of individual productivity
When Does “Truth” Win? When aviation crew resource management (CRM) A human factors
experts reviewed all the facts related to Flight training program, originally developed in the aviation
1549, they concluded Sully’s solution was the best industry, designed to improve crew coordination and
one given the circumstances. The flight crew’s efficiency through structured training in teamwork and
choice of that alternative illustrates the truth-wins communication skills and resource, time, and workload
rule. The best solution (truth), when suggested management.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
326 C H A P T E R 10
when in groups?” is “Ringelmann,” but her group the group may accept it. But if he or she says, “It’s
may not accept her solution because they doubt her hard to explain, I just have a feeling that is the
skills or because someone of higher status may pro- answer,” then even the correct answer may not
pose a different solution. Ringelmann is the correct find acceptance within the group.
answer, but this truth will not win out over error
unless someone in the group supports Rosa and her Social psychologist Patrick Laughlin (1980)
answer—a truth-supported-wins rule. bases his distinction between intellective and judg-
mental tasks on confirmability. Intellective tasks,
The truth-wins rule usually holds for groups like some Eureka tasks, yield solutions that can
working on Eureka problems, which are ones with be objectively reviewed and judged as right or
obviously correct answers. When we are told the wrong. They have a demonstrably correct solution.
answer to a Eureka problem, the answer fits so well Judgmental tasks, in contrast, require evaluative
we react with an “Aha!” or “Eureka!” The answers judgments for which no correct answer can be
to non-Eureka problems, in contrast, are not so satis- authoritatively determined. Logic and math pro-
fying, and so the truth-supported-wins rule holds blems are intellective tasks, whereas a jury’s decision
for groups working on those types of problems. in a trial or the question “Was Captain Sullenberger
Even after arguing about them, we often wonder a hero?” would be judgmental tasks. As tasks move
if the recommended answer is the correct one. along the continuum from clearly intellective to
clearly judgmental, the superiority of groups rela-
Consider, for example, the famous horse- tive to individuals also changes: Groups are more
trading problem: clearly superior when performing intellective tasks
(Bonner & Baumann, 2008; Laughlin, Bonner, &
A man bought a horse for $60 and sold it for Miner, 2002; Laughlin et al., 2003).
$70. Then he bought it back for $80 and again
sold it for $90. How much money did he make 10-3e Conjunctive Tasks
in the horse-trading business? (Maier & Solem,
1952, p. 281) As Flight 1549 descended into the Hudson, the
passengers sat in silence, bracing for the impact.
When 67 groups discussed this problem, many But when Sully gave the order to evacuate the air-
included a member who knew the correct answer, craft, the passengers filled the aisle, pushing to reach
but even these groups often adopted the wrong solu- the exits. Some opened the overhead storage areas,
tion. In this case, truth lost because knowledgeable seeking their carry-ons, but blocking the escape
members had a difficult time persuading the other route. Some passengers, such as 85-year old Lucille
members to adopt their solutions. In fact, some people Palmer, did not move as quickly as the other pas-
later changed their answers to match the incorrect sengers. Many passengers seated at the back of the
solution advocated by their groups (Maier & Solem, plane first tried the rear emergency exit, not know-
1952; the answer, by the way, is $20). Thus, groups ing it was already underwater and could not be
perform at the level of the best member of the group used. Sully stood by the door of the cockpit, wait-
only if (1) the member who knows the answer shares ing for the airplane to empty. The evacuation
his or her answer with the others and (2) the group
decides to adopt this answer as the solution (Davis, Intellective tasks A project, problem, or other type of
1973; Littlepage, 1991; Steiner, 1972). task with results that can be evaluated objectively using
some normative criterion, such as a mathematics problem
Intellective and Judgmental Tasks Groups are with a known solution or the spelling of a word.
also more likely to recognize, and accept, the cor- Judgmental tasks A project, problem, or other type of
rect solution when the person who proposes it can task with results that cannot be evaluated objectively
demonstrate that the solution is the correct one. If a because there are no clear criteria to judge them against.
group member backs up a solution with a proof, a
citation, or a quote from an authority, the rest of
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 327
would not be complete, in his mind, until the last indignity by expending more effort than they
passenger and crew member had disembarked. would if they were working alone—a rare group
motivation gain rather than loss. This tendency is
The Weakest Link On most tasks, the group’s known as the Köhler effect, named after Otto
performance results from some combination of all Köhler, the researcher who first documented the
the group members’ efforts. For conjunctive performance gains of weaker individuals striving
tasks, however, members are coupled together, to keep up with the accomplishments of others in
like links in a chain, so interdependence of actions the group (Köhler, 1926; Witte, 1989).
and outcomes is maximized. Mountain climbers
linked by safety lines, pallbearers carrying a casket, Social psychologist Norbert Kerr and his collea-
and passengers exiting a flight are performing a con- gues (2007) studied the Köhler effect by arranging for
junctive task, for the task is not completed until the women to complete a simple weight-lifting task.
last link in the chain finishes. Such groups some- They were told to hold a three-pound dumbbell hor-
times perform exceptionally well, particularly when izontally for as long as they could. When they low-
one member of the team sets a high standard for ered the weight, it would break a trip wire monitored
performance, and the other members are motivated by a laboratory computer, and the trial would end.
to match that level of proficiency. However, with The longer they held the weight, the more money
conjunctive tasks, the proficiency of the best mem- they could possibly earn at the end of the study. They
ber does not define the group’s performance. completed this task four times, with both their dom-
Instead, performance is determined by the prover- inant and nondominant arm. Women assigned to the
bial “weakest link”: the slowest, least productive, control condition completed the task without any
least skilled, most ineffective member. The speed partner; they thought they were alone. Others, how-
of a group of mountain climbers moving up the ever, were led to believe that an “Anne Roberts” was
slope is determined by its slowest member. The in the next room and that she was also performing
trucks in a convoy can move no faster than the the task. In both the coaction and conjunctive con-
slowest vehicle. Had anyone died on Flight 1549 ditions, participants could monitor Anne’s perfor-
it would not have been described as a “miracle.” mance on Trials 3 and 4 via computer as they
themselves struggled to hold up their weight. But in
Because of this coordination problem, groups the conjunctive condition, participants were also told
often take steps to improve their proficiency on that whoever lowered her weight first would deter-
conjunctive tasks. If the conjunctive tasks are divis- mine the group’s score. Since Anne did not actually
ible, then the group can assign group members to exist (and therefore never tired), subjects were always
the subcomponents that best match their skill levels. the IGM. But reluctant IGMs, judging by how much
If the least competent member is matched with the longer they managed to hold up the weight when
easiest task, a more satisfying level of performance paired with Anne; they achieved a 20-second gain
may be obtainable. If the least competent member in the coaction condition and a 33-second gain in
is matched with a difficult subtask, group perfor- the conjunctive condition.
mance will, of course, decline still further. (See
Steiner, 1972, Chapter 3, for a detailed review of A meta-analytic review of 22 studies of group
group performance on divisible tasks.) performance confirms these findings. Individuals
who find that their work is inferior to someone
The Köhler Effect Few group members relish else’s work show improvement relative to others
being cast in the role of the group’s most inferior
group member (IGM), so they often respond to this Köhler effect An increase in performance by groups
working on conjunctive tasks that require persistence
conjunctive tasks A task that can be completed success- but little coordination of effort and is likely due to the
fully only if all group members contribute. increased effort expended by the less capable members.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
328 C H A P T E R 10
deprived of this comparison information, but this T A B L E 10.4 A Summary of the Potential
performance gain is particularly dramatic when Type of Task Productivity of Groups Work-
they are part of a group working on a conjunctive Additive ing on Various Tasks
task. IGMs are much more likely to improve when Compensatory
in face-to-face groups and when information about Productivity Effect
the quality of other people’s performance is readily Disjunctive
available. The Köhler effect is also stronger in Better than the best: The group
women than men (Weber & Hertel, 2007). Conjunctive: exceeds the performance of even
Unitary the best individual member.
10-3f Discretionary Tasks Conjunctive:
Divisible Better than most: The group
Steiner noted that a group can sometimes complete Discretionary exceeds the performance of a
the tasks it faces by using a variety of combination substantial number of the indi-
procedures. How, for example, would a group esti- vidual members.
mate the temperature of the room in which it is
working? One simple method would involve aver- Better than average and some-
aging individual judgments. Alternatively, members times equal to the best: The
can determine whether anyone in the group is par- group performs best if it accepts
ticularly good at such judgments, and then they use the most capable member’s input
this person’s answer as the group solution. Judging as the group solution; groups
the temperature of the room is a discretionary rarely perform better than the
task, because the members themselves can choose best member. (Process gains
the method for combining individual inputs. resulting in synergy are rare.)
10-3g Process Gains in Groups Equal to the worst: The group
equals the performance of its
Steiner’s (1972) analysis of task demands and their least capable member.
impact on group performance is summarized in
Table 10.4. Groups perform additive tasks fairly Better than the worst: Perfor-
well, although their productivity is often limited mance will be superior if subtasks
by social loafing. Groups also perform better than are matched to members’
the average group member on many other kinds of capabilities.
tasks (compensatory, disjunctive, divisible conjunc-
tive tasks when weaker members are assigned easier Variable: Performance depends
subtasks, and discretionary), but only when process on the combination rules
losses are minimized. As Steiner’s (1972) formula, adopted by the group.
AP = PP − PL, predicts, process losses turn poten-
tial productivity into actual productivity. members, by collaborating on a shared task, sometimes
gain new solutions, energy, and insights into old pro-
But don’t groups sometimes achieve results that blems that they would never have achieved as indivi-
surpass what Steiner’s theory predicts? Can’t group duals? Aren’t some groups greater than the sum of their
parts? Does 1 + 1 + 1 sometimes equal 4 instead of 3?
Searching for Synergy Group researchers have
long sought definitive evidence of synergy in
discretionary task A relatively unstructured task that can synergy Producing an outcome as a group that is super-
be completed by using a variety of social–combination pro- ior to the results that could have been achieved by a
cedures, thus leaving the methods used in its completion to simple aggregation or accumulation of group members’
the discretion of the group or group leader. individual efforts; a gain in performance caused by
performance-enhancing group processes.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PERFORMANCE 329
groups. Synergy occurs whenever the combined But synergy, although rare, does happen, par-
effect of two or more discrete systems is greater ticularly when the group members are highly
than the effect of these systems when they operate motivated—when grades, jobs, or lives are on the
independently. Two drugs, for example, combine line. Synergy happens, for example, when students
synergistically if their effects are greater when they work in learning teams in their classes, and each
are taken together rather than separately. In groups, student’s grade in the course is based, in part, on
if synergy occurs, the group as a whole performs their group’s collective performance. These groups
better than what would be expected given the skills often outperformed their best members, suggesting
and abilities of its members. Synergy, as defined by that the groups could identify new and better solu-
group researchers, is not group-level energy or a tions when they worked together (Michaelsen,
heightened sense of connectedness among members, Watson, & Black, 1989). Other investigators, who
but a process gain generated by performance- replicated these findings, concluded that the syner-
enhancing group processes. Synergy is sometimes gistic effects occurred primarily because someone in
called an assembly bonus effect because “the group is the group other than the best member knew the
able to achieve collectively something which could right answer and could correct the best member
not have been achieved by any member working (Stasson & Bradshaw, 1995). Such groups appar-
alone or by a combination of individual efforts” ently make this critically important judgment by
(Collins & Guetzkow, 1964, p. 58). considering the level of confidence each member
expresses in his or her answer. The group is more
Strong and Weak Synergy Social psychologist likely to perform well when the member who is
James Larson (2010) draws a distinction between correct is also the most confident (Bahrami et al.,
weak and strong synergy. Imagine four students 2010; see too Koriat, 2012).
who, working separately, earn 70%, 80%, 80%,
and 90% on a test; their average score would be A group’s chances of achieving strong synergy
80%. If when they earn a score of 85% when they also depend on the basal skill level of the group
take the test in their learning team—a score above members and the “cognitive distance” separating
the 80% average and a better score than three of the them. Groups with highly competent members,
four would have achieved working individually— given their greater resources, are more likely to dis-
then the group would demonstrate weak synergy. play strong synergy than are groups whose members
The group would be showing strong synergy, how- are less skilled or less prepared (Curşeu, Jansen, &
ever, if it scored a 91% or higher—better than even Chappin 2013). Synergy also requires some, but
the best member of the group. not too much, variation among the members in cog-
nitive competency and expertise. If all the members
Synergy eludes most groups. Steiner did not are nearly equivalent in their level of competence,
write his formula as AP = PP − PL + PG, where their resources may be so redundant that little is
PG indicates process gains due to synergy. When gained by pooling those resources. Increasing cogni-
individuals work on a collective task, the whole is tive distance therefore increases the group’s chances
often much less than the sum of the parts, as members to achieve strong synergy, except when the most
exert less effort (social loafing) or let others do their competent group member is too advanced. In such
share of the work (free-riding). Groups often outper- cases, the group has little to offer the highly compe-
form the most incompetent group member (the “bet- tent member, who in turn may have trouble con-
ter than the worst” effect), and, in most cases, they vincing the other group members to accept his or
perform as well as the most typical group member. her recommendations (Curşeu et al., 2014).
Rarely, however, do they perform above and beyond
the level of the typical group member (weak synergy) Groups can, however, improve their pursuit of
or better than the best member (strong synergy; see synergy by deliberately adopting specialized perfor-
Carey & Laughlin, 2012). mance methods that are designed to minimize all
process loss, while maximizing the possibility of
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc
- 1 - 50
- 51 - 100
- 101 - 150
- 151 - 200
- 201 - 250
- 251 - 300
- 301 - 350
- 351 - 400
- 401 - 450
- 451 - 500
- 501 - 550
- 551 - 600
- 601 - 650
- 651 - 700
- 701 - 723
Pages: