Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social loafing impact on organization
Social loafing impact on organization
Personality in decision making in an organisation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social loafing impact on organization
By establishing work teams, organizations can leverage the creative ability of a group to accomplish desired goals. However, the efficiency of the team can be thwarted by several negative traits that can plague groups. Two behaviors that can undermine the covenantal attitudes within a team are the presence of groupthink and social loafing (Fischer, 2015). Neither of which support the development of mutual respect and care of the individuals within the group. This paper will expound on those two negative group behaviors and provide biblical support for appropriate covenantal work team behavior.
Groupthink
One major contradictory force to effective work teams is the presence of the phenomenon of groupthink, which corrodes the decision-making abilities of a group. Robbins and Judge (2009) describe groupthink as “situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views” (p. 304). Group members feel compelled to kowtow to the conclusions of the majority or of those as seen as more popular or charismatic. Consequently, viable alternatives may go undiscovered, and group performance can stagnate. In these situations, the individuals of the group receive
…show more content…
When groups become too large or group members feel insignificant, social loafing can result. Social loafing is defined as “the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually” (Robbins & Judge, 2009, p. 299). This also contradicts a covenantal approach to group behavior and the biblical admonition to “do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3, NASB). In fact, Kayes, Kayes and Kolb (2005) noted that self-centered behaviors and self-promotion may be the cause of social
The topic of this paper is Irving Janis’s concept of groupthink. There has been an increase in the utilization of groups or teams of people who come together in the decision-making process. There are many benefits to group decision-making with each member brings their own perspectives, beliefs, and ideas to the table. However, there are also negative dynamics such as groupthink that can hinder this process. Groupthink can lead to members believing that their opinions don’t hold as much weight as their peers, a group becoming overconfident in their knowledge of what is right, and the minimization of threats. Lack of thorough analysis of all available options or opportunities can have costly and long reaching negative consequences. Proactive
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.
To comply and conform in society is sometimes ideal in some situations especially when everyone has their own ideas, beliefs, opinions and ways of thinking. So to comply and conform when group work arises is a situation many people do to avoid confrontation, possible embarrassment, and generally being `the odd one out'. Psychologists have done many experiments to tests compliance and conformity. They have tested why people do it, when people will do it, which people do it, how people do it, and what situations people are more likely to do it. I will discuss mainly what enhances and what reduces this type of behaviour through research done by Asch, Milgram, and Sherif.
In 1972, Irving Janis presented a set of hypothesis that he extracted from observing small groups performing problem solving tasks; he collectively referred to these hypotheses as groupthink¹. He defined groupthink as “a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action²” A successful group brings varied ideas, collective knowledge, and focus on the task at hand. The importance of groups is to accomplish tasks that individuals can not do on their own. The Bay of Pigs, Watergate, and the Challenger disaster are all forms of failure within a group. Specifically, you can see the effect of groupthink of Americans before September 11, 2001. The thought of harm to the United States was unfathomable, but only after the attacks did they realize they were not invincible. When a solid, highly cohesive group is only concerned with maintaining agreement, they fail to see their alternatives and any other available options. When a group experiences groupthink, they may feel uninterested about a task, don't feel like they will be successful, and the group members do not challenge ideas. Stress is also a factor in the failure of groupthink. An effective group needs to have clear goals, trust, accountability, support, and training. Some indicators that groupthink may be happening are; making unethical decisions, they think they are never wrong, close-minded about situations, and ignore important information. Many things can be done to prevent groupthink from happening. One way is to make each person in the group a “critical evaluator”. The leader must ...
Groupthink theory is the psychological phenomenon in which groups working on a task think along the same lines, which could have drastic consequences. This results from group polarization where discussions are enhanced or exaggerate the initial leanings of the group’s decision. Therefore, if a group leans towards a risky situation at the beginning on average they will move toward an even riskier position later. (Marks, 2015). The concept that everyone thinks the same question is anyone really thinking. These drastic consequences come from individuals trying to avoid conflict with one another and being highly cohesive give way to questionable decision making (Oliver, 2013). This theory seems to new concept, Houghton Mifflin publication of Victims
There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ...
A. Preventing "Groupthink" Psychology Today. 20 Apr. 2011. The. Psychology Today.
In any niche of human civilization, there will always be groups. In those groups, there will always be those who are characterized as leaders and those who end up being characterized as followers. Most of these groups do not end up operating on any set dynamic, although some do. In an even smaller portion of these groups, a certain phenomena called ‘Groupthink’ occurs. The term ‘Groupthink’, coined by Yale research psychologist Irving Janis, occurs when a homogenous highly cohesive group is so concerned with maintaining unanimity that they fail to evaluate all of their alternatives and options.
Social loafing is the effect that people will exert less effort if they are working in a collective environment. Working in groups is an integral part of everyday life because it happens in almost every context whether it is sports teams, organizational groups, project groups and even juries. Therefore it is important to understand the underlying factors that influence this construct. The current research composed of 20 participants, investigated the social loafing effect of two working conditions: Coactive and Collective. It was hypothesized that collective groups would have significantly lower scores than coactive and the results supported this prediction strongly as there was a significant difference between the groups. These results have a strong implication that collective work teams are usually more prone to social loafing however; this could be minimized if certain factors such as interaction and complexity of the task were incorporated.
pp. 309-329, 371-393, 241-259. Engleberg, I., Wynn, D., & Schuttler, R., (2003). Working in Groups: Communication Principles and Strategies (3rd ed.) Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Groupthink is the psychological phenomenon in which groups working on a task think along the same lines which could have drastic results. It is the result of group polarization where discussions are enhance or exaggerate the initial leanings of the group. Therefore, if a group leans towards risky situation at the beginning of the discussion on average they will move toward an even riskier position. (Marks, 2015). The idea when everyone think the same no one is really thinking. The drastic outcomes result from people trying to avoid conflict with one another, being highly cohesive, and results is questionable decision making (Oliver, 2013). Houghton Mifflin publication of Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions
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).
Organizations in today’s society are adopting a team based structure in their approach to tackle company’s challenges, problems and issues. Team based success stories include Hallmark who had a 200% reduction in design time, which allowed for the introduction of 23,000 new card lines in a single year (Janasz, Dowd, Schneider, 2006). But in saying all this there is a factor which causes the positive effect of team work and team cohesiveness to be affected and that is social loafing. Social loafing is more likely to occur in large teams from 3 members onwards, and is where members in the team apply less effort than when working as an individual. Social loafing appears within every team one way or another, even if it’s in a high functioning or dysfunctional environment (Murphy, Wayne Linden, Erdogan, 1992). Research has shown that a combined team performance required less effort by individuals than if they were to work alone, and therefore the social loafer in the team is able to profit from the work of the others without exerting any of their potential. “Loafers and free riders are allowed to benefit because, in each case, the outcome of the group performance…is shared equally by all group members, regardless of their input.” (Weldon and Mustari 1988, p.33)
our thought process, and how we contribute to the process of group work. This involves a
Working in groups is challenging at times. Other times it is very rewarding. We are so focused on life that we do not take time to reflect on things as much as we should. Being in a Groups class has opened my eyes to a whole new world. I have begun to question, explore, and even understand how things work. I even get how they work sometimes. Not only is there a process involved in making individual decisions, process is involved in group decisions as well. This paper attempts give insight into my reflection of my group decision process.