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. Cherry explains social loafing as an event when members of a group have less input per person in a group than they would if they were working by themselves. (Cherry). This challenges the widespread belief that the net output of a group is more than that of an individual and therefore a group 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 placed in a group his or her effort was less than their individual effort. This effect continued to increase as the group size increased. Originally, there was a debate over whether the loss resulted from social loafing or loss of coordination as the group size increased. Latan, William, and Harkins (1979) conducted research that deceived participants into thinking they were working with a group and proved the decrease in effort was from social loafing not coordination loss (Latan, William, & Harkins, 1979).
There have been additional studies that show the contradictory effect known as social facilitation. Originally, social facilitation research began with Zajon. In his research he believed the presence of others would augment the effort of the group and would generally provoke performances and in the process increase the output of the individual. He theorized there are several necessary aspects for the process to work, such as simple or familiar tasks. If the task is complicated or unfamiliar, an increased group size would impede productivity by increasing social loafing (Zajonc, 1965). This...
... middle of paper ...
...U.S. Naval War College students. Retrieved 10 25, 2011, from The International review of Research in Open and Distance Learning: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/484/1034
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.
Langton, Nancy, Stephen Robbins, and Timothy Judge.Organizational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies, Applications. Fifth Canadian Edition. Toronto: Pearson Canada, 2009. 141, 574-84. Print.
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.
Kinicki, A., and Fugate, M. Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills, & Best Practices (5th Edition). McGraw-Hill. ISBN-10: 0078137209/ISBN-13: 978-0078137204, 79-124, 2011.
Gilovich, T., & Gilovich, T. (2013). Chapter 12/ Groups. In Social psychology. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Robbins , Stephen P. and Judge, Timothy, A. Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Prentice Hall. Pearson Custom Publishing. 2008 Print
In today’s workforce being able to work within the confinement of a team atmosphere is a reality. Many employers believe that collectively working together to achieve the same goal. If you are able to achieve this it is known as “Synergy” or the power of teamwork when the group is greater than the sum of its parts. Although this doesn’t always occur in teams it can be contributed to the amount of members on the team. Depending on the task that is given to a team they will need to determine the number of members that will make up the team. When looking at the sum of the size of the team, psychologist Max Ringleman set up a tug-o-war to learn the estimated amount of power is created (Larsen). One theory states that people actually put in less effort when they think others will take up the slack (Larsen). Another explanation involves so-ordination errors that can be a contributor to the size of the group in generating power. The more people involved, the more likely why are to get in each other’...
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational Behavior (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, United States of America: Pearson Prentise 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.
McShane, S.L. and Von Glinow, M. A. (2009). Organizational Behavior: Emerging knowledge and practice for the real world. McGraw-Hill.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational behavior (14 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
It has been hypothesized that groups or pairs with high interpersonal compatibility perform better on collective tasks (Hill, 1975). However, as I will demonstrate in the follo...
The reason why social loafing is a problem in organisations is because individuals minimize their contributions because they feel that the efforts are not noticed by others in the group (Kerr, 1983). Members may feel that they are able to “hang at the back” or in turn free ride and avoid all the consequences of not contributing any work. In saying that a team member may feel left out and may feel they are not able to gain the recognition to contribute, therefore feeling their efforts are not needed or will not be recognized (Brooks, Ammons, 2003).
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.