10/8/2013

OB-II

Session 1-4

Tuckmans Five-Stage Theory

Feeling of Team spirit is experienced
Performing Norming Storming Forming

Return to Independence
Adjourning

Climate of open communication, strong cooperation and lots of helping behavior

Roles Goals Trust Dependence

10/8/2013

Re-storming re-norming

Reference: McGrew, Bilotta & Deeney, 1999

Performing Norming Storming Forming

Performing

De-norming De-storming De-forming

Erosion of standards of conduct Group Decay

Discontent surfaces and cohesiveness

Care Little beyond their self-imposed borders

10/8/2013

1. Should not become complacent upon reaching the performing stage 2. Awareness is the first line of defense 3. Constructive steps need to be taken to bolster cohesiveness even when the work groups seem to be doing their best

Groups

Teams

Individual Contribution Individual Outcomes

Performance Depends on .. Accountability rests on ..

Individual and Collective Mutual Outcomes

Common Goals

Members are interested in ..

Common Goals and Commitment to Purpose

Demands of Management

Responsive to ..

Self-imposed Demands

10/8/2013

Productivity

No of Members
Reference: John, G. (1996). Organizational Behavior: Understanding and Managing Life at Work. Harper Collins, Page - 251

How many group members is too many?

Mathematical Modeling Approach 3 to 13 Increase in group size 1. Positive effects of team building 2. Group leaders tend to be more directive 3. Member satisfaction

Laboratory Simulation Approach

If high quality decision quality is important If generation of Creative ideas is the objective Odd number of groups are recommended if the issue is to be settled by a majority vote

10/8/2013

As the size of the team increases beyond 20 members, the level of natural cooperation among members of the team decreases

Reference: Gratton, L & Erickson, T. J. (2007). Eight ways to build collaborative teams. Harvard Business Review.

Temporary Groups with Deadlines

(High)

Phase 2
Performance

Completion First Meeting Transition Phase 1

(Low) A (A+B)/2 Time B

Punctuated-Equilibrium Model

10/8/2013

Effect of Men and Women working together in Groups

Men interrupted women significantly more often than Police Nursing Women Interrupted men and women equally

Attitude Shift Neutral to negative Favorable to neutral

Keep the Domain

Share the Domain

As the attitude towards the role of women have changed in contemporary society, differences in social participation have also begun to diminish
- Nielsen (1990)

10/8/2013

Collective Intelligence

Average

Percentage of Women
Reference: Anita Woolley and Thomas Malone (2011). What Makes a Team Smarter? More Women, Harvard Business Review

Cohesiveness
Group Reward External Challenges Agreement with Team Goals Success
Cohesiveness

Member Interaction Group Size Somewhat Difficult Entry

Before After

Reference: John, G. (1996). Organizational Behavior: Understanding and Managing Life at Work. Harper Collins.

Time

10/8/2013

Group Cohesiveness
Performance Norms Cohesiveness Productivity

Cohesiveness High PerformanceHigh related Norms Low High Productivity Low Productivity Low Moderate Productivity Moderate/ Low Productivity

Norm

Help the group survive Simplify behavioral expectations Help in avoiding embarrassing situations Clarify groups central values/ unique identity

10/8/2013

How Norms are Developed

Explicit statement by supervisors or co-workers Critical events in groups history Primacy First behavioral patterns that that emerges in a group Carryover behaviors from past situations

Role

Expected Behavior for a given Position Others expectations > Ones Ability Others have conflicting or inconsistent Expectations Others Expectations are Unknown

10/8/2013

Zimbardos Prison Experiment

A follow up study by BBC

Prisoners and guards behave differently when they are monitored

Guards were more careful in their behavior Concerned about how their actions might be perceived An egalitarian system developed between prisoners and the guards

Abuse of roles can be limited when people are made conscious of their behavior

10

10/8/2013

Status

A socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others

The power a person wields over others A persons ability to contribute to a groups goals An individuals personal characteristics

High status people are given more freedom to deviate from norms Tend to be more assertive members Criticize/ state more commands / interrupt others more often Inhibit diversity of ideas

11

10/8/2013

Size

Cohesiveness

Properties of Groups Roles Norms

Status

Conformity

12

10/8/2013

There is no direct request to comply with the group nor Any reason to justify the behavior change

The convergence of individuals thoughts, feelings, and behavior toward a group norm

Need for Acceptance/ Approval of Others

Need for Certainty

Normative Influence

Power of others to Reward/Punish

Subjective Uncertainty Informational Influence

Need for information to reduce uncertainty Conflict between own and others opinions

Comparison with others

Compliance

Internalization

Private Disagreement

Public Acceptance

Private Acceptance

13

10/8/2013

Distortion of individual judgment by a unanimous but incorrect opposition

Asch Effect

Results 33% went along with the group on a majority of the trials 25% remained completely independent 75% conformed at least once When tested alone (no confederates), subjects got more than 98% of the judgments correct When tested with confederates, they only got 66% of the judgments correct

14

10/8/2013

The Asch Experiment

Conformity Level

Number of Confederates

If there is one dissenting voice, the dramatic effects of conformity are erased

Determinants

Visibility Importance of the issue Low individual confidence Strong commitment to the group Difficult/ Ambiguous Issues

High status people

15

10/8/2013

Total force exerted by the group increases Add more and more people to a group The average force exerted by each group member declines

The phenomenon in which participants, who work together, generate less effort than do participants who work alone

Social Loafing

16

10/8/2013

Does social loafing occur in brainstorming groups

Increasing Group Size, Increasing Group Output

N u m ber o f Ideas G enerated 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

67 48 34 25

72

12

N u m ber o f G ro u p M em bers

17

10/8/2013

But Decreasing Individual Input

Ideas P er G ro u p M em ber 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 4 8 N u m ber o f G ro u p M em bers 12 25 17 12 8 6

Motivation strategies Increase identifiability Promote involvement Reward team members for performance Strengthen team cohesion Provide team performance reviews and feedback

Coordination strategies Using single-digit teams Training team members together Spending more time practicing Minimizing links in communication Setting clear performance standards

Reference: Thompson, L. L. (2003). Making the team: A guide for managers. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

18

10/8/2013

Stepladder Techniques
1. Each group member must be given the groups task and sufficient time to think about the problem before entering the core group 2. The entering member must present his/ her preliminary solutions before hearing the core groups preliminary solutions. 3. With the entry of the additional member to the core group, sufficient time to discuss the problem is necessary 4. A final decision must be purposely delayed until the group has been formed in its entirety.

Abilene Paradox

Inability to manage agreement, not the inability to manage conflict

19

10/8/2013

Organizational Members
Agree privately (as individuals) to the situation facing the organization Fail to accurately communicate their desires and/ or beliefs to one another Invalid and inaccurate information, leads to collective decisions that lead them to take actions contrary to what they want to do Actions that are counterproductive, leads to the experience of frustration, anger, irritation, and dissatisfaction with their organization

20

10/8/2013

They form sub-groups with trusted acquaintances and blame other subgroups for the organizations dilemma

Organizational members do not deal with the issue and the cycle repeats itself with greater magnitude

Abilene Paradox

Inaccurate assumptions about what others think and believe

unwillingness to speak up about what one thinks and believes

Action Anxiety

Make Confronters into Heroes

Negative Fantasies (Loss of face, Prestige, Position, Health)

Create Empowering Structures

Real Risk Develop a Culture of Pride Fear of Separation (Ostracism)

21

10/8/2013

Groups become more concerned with reaching consensus than with reaching consensus in a way that ensures its validity

Groupthink

Invulnerability

Illusion of Unanimity

Inherent Morality

Excessive Stereotyping

Groupthink
Pressure for Conformity Collective Rationalization

SelfCensorship

Mindguards

22

10/8/2013

Antecedents of Groupthink
Highly cohesive groups

Group Structure Homogeneous members Directive leadership Unsystematic procedures

Stressful Situations

Avoiding Groupthink
The leader should be neutral Group size High status members offer opinions last The leader should give high priority to members airing objections and doubts, and be willing to accept criticism Groups should always consider unpopular alternatives, assigning the role of devil's advocate to several strong members of the group Outside experts should be included in vital decision making

23

10/8/2013

Two heads are better than One!

The benefits of two heads require that they differ in relevant skills and abilities The group members must be able to communicate their ideas freely and openly. This requires an absence of hostility and intimidation The task being undertaken is complex. Relative to individuals, groups do better on complex rather than simple tasks

Organizational Level

Mount Everest Tragedy

Individual Level

Group Level

24

10/8/2013

Team Effectiveness

Shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking Risk of looking ignorant Risk of looking incompetent Risk of being seen as intrusive Risk of being seen as negative Team members demonstrate a high level of trust and mutual respect for one another The team members do not believe that the group will marginalize or penalize for speaking up or challenging prevailing opinions

Member Status Difference

Leader Coaching and Support

Team Psychological Safety

Team Learning Behavior

Level of Familiarity

25

10/8/2013

Thank You

26