Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How social loafing can affect a team
How social loafing can affect a team
Social Loafing examples
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How social loafing can affect a team
What is Social Loafing?
Social Loafing is something everyone has experienced. Most likely if you do not like group work this is one of the main reasons why. “Social loading describes the tendency of individuals to put forth less effort when they are part of a group. Because all members of the group are pooling their effort to achieve a common goal each member of the group contributes less than they would if they were individually responsible” (Cherry). This challenges the common belief that group work will be more productive. In 1913 a researcher named Ringelmann designed an experiment involving rope pulling to test the effect of social loafing. His experiment found that when an individual was put in a group his or her effort was less. This effect continued to increase as the group size increased. Originally, there was a debate over if the loss was from Social Loafing or Coordination Loss. It was not until another experiment was conducted that tricked participants into thinking they were working with a group did Social Loafing become confirmed.
There have also been studies that show the opposite effect known as Social Facilitation. Originally Social Facilitation research began with Zajon, in his research he believed the presence of others would increase the effort of others and would generally arouse performances therefore, increasing the out of the individual. He theorized there are several necessary aspects such as simple or familiar tasks. However, if a task is complicated or unfamiliar increased group size would hamper productivity by increasing social loafing (Zajonc, 1965). This shows that Social Loafing is more than group size but that there are other factors that contribute to the reduced individual performance.
C...
... middle of paper ...
... Review and Theoretical Integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 701.
Kugihara, N. (1999). Gender and Social Loafing in Japan. Journal of Social Psychology , 139, 516-526.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Essentials of Organizational Behavior. Harlow England: Pearson Education Limited.
Rothwell, D. J. (1999). In The Company of Others: An Introduction to Communication. New York: McGraw Hill.
Smith, H. (1976). The Russians. New York, New York, USA: New York Balantine Books.
Welte, K., & Kunishima, J. (2004). Effects of Punishment Threats on Social Loafing. Journal of Young Investigators .
Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, E., Hart, D., & Butemeyer, J. (1998). Social identity and individual productivity with groups. British Journal of Social Psychology , 37, 389-413. (p. 271).
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social Facilitation. Science , 269-274.
Ringelmann effect is where the productivity of a players performance can be lowered by as much as 50 percent Given the group becomes bigger. This is because they believe that others will compensate for you and also that your effort will make little difference to the team. In basketball it is noticeable when somebody's performance decreases as their team mates are covering and helping them more on defence. Social loafing is where members of a group do not put in 100% in a group or team. this will be because of some of situations which include loss of self belief and being anxious. once more in basketball you could inform someone who is social loafing as their defence as they may be continuously desiring help
... business by Steve Jobs, and inspired by the Homebrew Computer Club to make the first Apple Computer, he undertook the design process completely alone. Steve Wozniak even gives this piece of advice to budding engineers "work alone". but even though studies have found that we are more productive alone, most businesses have moved to in Open Office plan, and concentrated on team building and group brainstorming. when someone is interrupted they can take twice as long to finish a task. working together maybe good to orient a group on a project, but people need to be free from criticism and fear well they do the actual work. when scientists analyzed the work of computer programmers, they found that the ones with the highest level of privacy had much higher productivity levels. people also automatically tend to follow the herd, out of a unconscious fear of not fitting in.
The present study identified social loafing is less likely in collective conditions than coactive conditions although results were non-significant. This study supports the research of Worchel, Rothgerber & Day (2011) as participants who worked in newly formed groups worked harder in the group setting than alone. This was shown to occur due to a number of reasons including group goal setting and group level comparison between participants. Future studies should consider the influences of group tasks for group development. In conclusion, social loafing in collective groups are not significantly less than the coactive condition however results may vary in future experiments due to having new variables, different participants and a change methodology in future experiments.
Our behavior is an obvious effect of how groups affect us. Social facilitation for example occurs when an indivisual changes their performance because others are around (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2014). When Dap and Half-Pint where in the library, Half- Pint acted in a calm relatable matter, yet around the Gamma recruits he conformed to the dumb things they did. Social loafing also affects people within a group. Social loafing is the reduced motivation and effort shown by individuals working in a group as opposed to working alone (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2014). An example of social loafing would be when Dap’s group decided to march in the parade, the people supporting him wouldn’t need to apply as much effort to protest together than they would alone. School Daze also conveys the message of being lost in the crowd, which is Deindividuation. Deindividuation is the lost of personal identity within the crowd (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2014). Sororities and fraternities have the idea that all members are one. Last, but not least a group can affect one’s attitude, or the way you feel about something. The common attitudes of the sororities and fraternities lead to prejudice. Prejudice is a prejudgment, usually negative, of another person on the basis of his or her membership in a group. In School Daze, Rachael and Jane had a rivalry because they had two different points of view on hair, causing the entire group to dislike each other because they were apart of a separate group. As the saying goes, you are the company you
Established by Elton Mayo and associates while conducting a study in 1933, it recognizes the importance of human interaction and that social factors are significant in accomplishing organizational goals. The research showed that technical rationality such as, procedures, processes, and structures, were not sufficient enough to guarantee maximum productivity. They concluded, social factors, were as important, if not more important, than technical factors. They based the findings off of the observation that productivity seemed to be connected to worker morale and the sense of social responsibility to their co-workers (Hutchison 2011).
Robbins, S.P. & Judge, T.A. (2009). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel and L. W. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chigago: Nelson-Hall
In conclusion, something happens to individuals when they collect in a group, they act differently to the way they would on their own, regardless of whether the group has gathered to solve problems, make decisions or have fun, and regardless of whether the members know each other. (Psychology in perspective, third edition, Tavris and Wade, 2001)
Stewart, G., Manz, C., & Sims, H., (1999). Teamwork and Group Dynamics. New York: Wiley. pp. 70- 125.
Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2009). Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices (customized 4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Approaching another is a start, being together after some time is an improvement, and accomplishing things together is the reward. This is Henry Ford’s idea on team work (as cited in Motivating Quotes, n.d.). Working together in a group requires support from each and every member in accomplishing the task. Active participation of every member is highly necessary. Ideas and views are welcomed to improve performance.
Not all of the teams work well. Such problem as free-riding, or social loafing, is quite a common one and is very difficult to resolve. A lot of managers and teachers struggle with it. Each and every team should have these 3 key elements: “Interaction, Information sharing and Influence over decision making” (Michael West, year).
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational behavior (14 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
...adership Practices in Relation to Productivity and Morale." In D. Cartwright and A. Zander, Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, 2nd ed. (Elmsford, NY: Row, Paterson, 1960)
Several experiments and researches have been conducted that have focused on how people behave in groups. The findings have revealed that groups affect peoples’ attitudes, behavior and perceptions. Groups are essential for personal life, as well as in work life.