Social Psychology

 

Groups & Leadership

2007
Lecturer:  James Neill
Lecture Web Page

http: //ucspace. canberra. edu. au/ display/7125/Lecture+Groups

Readings
I Ch14 Groups

Baumeister,  R....
Overview:  Pt 1
(Groups)

” Questions about groups
What is a group? 

Groups,  roles,  and selves
Group action

How groups...
Questions about groups

Is group behaviour different to
the behaviour of individuals? 

fDo groups make better or
worse de...
What is a group? 
IHow would you define a
group? 

IWhat are the minimal
criteria for a group?
What is a group? 

if 2 >=  people
V “doing or being something together”

Group members: 

V Feel similar

l Share a commo...
What is a Group? 

“A collection of people, 
usually people who are
doing or being something
together. ”

(Bauemeister & B...
What is a Group? 

“two or more people who share
a common definition and
evaluation of themselves and
behave in accordance...
What is a Group? 

A collection of people who: 
I interact with one another
I accept rights & obligations
I share a common...
What is a Group? 

Criteria: 

I 2 or more persons

I formal social structure

I common fate

I common goals

I interdepen...
Why groups? 

C Groups are favored by evolution

If individuals compete against
groups. ..

  Humans always live in small ...
Advantages of Animal Groups

I Safety in numbers

I Vigilance:  even if just one spots the
danger,  or opportunity

I Shar...
Advantages of Human Groups

Role differentiation,  division of labor
-Everything is done by experts
—Assembly line example...
Advantages of Human Groups

In human evolution
“Safety in numbers
  Help others find food

  Accomplish tasks that are too...
Advantages of Human Groups

Cultural groups

I Preserve information and pass it along
to future generations

I Use informa...
Studying Groups

I The whole (group) can be more than
the sum of its parts

I But sometimes it is much less

I Hence one c...
Social Facilitation

I The tendency to perform well when others
are present

I Classic study by Triplett

— Children wind ...
Social Facilitation

In 1897, Norman Triplett noticed that
bicycle racers usually made better
times in group competition t...
Social Facilitation

I But sometimes the presence of others
makes performance worse (social
inhibition)

I Zajonc noticed ...
Facilitation vs.  Loafing

I Social facilitation is found in many animals
I Social loafing is uniquely human

— If people ...
Facilitation vs.  Loafing

 

Individual _ _
efforts _,  Evaluation _,  Social
evaluated apprehension Facilitation
Presenc...
Social Facilitation Theory

I Presence of others is arousing

I Arousal increases the “dominant response, ”
whatever it is...
Social Facilitation

In a social situation,  would a violinist: 
V Perform a well-rehearsed piece well? 
i Perform a diffi...
Social Facilitation Theory

I Presence of others facilitates dominant response
(Allport,  1920)
I Theory of social facilit...
Cockroach Studies
(Zajonc,  et al. , 1969)

I Simple mazes more quickly when they ran
in the presence of 4 other cockroach...
Running time

250

Simple
Task dlfilculty

Complex
Pool Hall Study: 

Enhancing the dominant response
100 T

O

epetu S10Li| S }0 %
-h 01 O3 ~l
C G C

100$
OD

_x
O

l Other...
Why does this happen? 

Evaluation apprehension — concern about
being judged

Presence of Evaluation Arousal Dominant
othe...
Evaluation Apprehension Model
(Cottrell,  1972)

Apprehension about evaluation
-> arousal
-> increased drive & social
faci...
Time taken (seconds)

Time taken for an easy and a difficult
typing task as a function of social

75
65
55
45
35
25

prese...
Distraction-conflict theory
(Baron,  1986; Sanders,  1983)

I Conflict occurs when person
simultaneously pays attention to...
Tendency to pay
attention to
audience or
coactors

.  l
l l  l . 
Individual presence of _ l _ _ Increased 30°13]

perfoim...
Zajonc’s Drive Theory of Social
Facilitation (Zajonc,  1965)

Mere physical presence of others leads to

arousal,  motivat...
The Hawthorne Effect

I The benefits you reap when you pay
attention to people. 

I The act of showing people you are
inte...
The Hawthorne Effect

People who know  c
that they are being :5 _; .,  
observed modify ,4 *-
their behavior not r“
only c...
Social Loafing

I People often reduce effort when working
in a group

I “Tug of War” Study
- Worked alone or in groups
— D...
Social Loafing

A reduction in individual effort when
working on a collective task compared to
working alone. 

P Coordina...
Social Loafing

  Ringlemann (1913) — less effort per

person exerted when rope pulling in
a group vs.  alone. 

A Latane,...
Social Loafing

I Factors: 
— Not individually identified or accountable
— Not wanting to be a ‘sucker’
— Bad apple effect
...
Reduction in volume of individual shout in 2-
person & 6-person real & pseudo-groups

. ...  . .  .P. Qt. <?.11I. i.3.1.l?...
Why Does Social Loafing
Occur? 
Output equity
Evaluation apprehension
IMatching to standard
  Diffusion of individual
resp...
Collective Effort Model (CEM)
(Karau & Williams,  1993)

  Links between individual’s

efforts & their outcomes weaker
whe...
Collective Effort Model (CEM)

Individuals Working Alone

Individuals Working with Others in Groups

Group Share of

Perfo...
Collective Effort Model (CEM)

Individuals work hard on a task when: 

1. Believe working hard will lead to a better
perfo...
Ways to i Social Loafing

I T identifiability

I T value of task

I T uniqueness of contributions
I T group cohesiveness

...
Diverse Groups

Can be more creative &
flexible. 

IBetter chance of bringing in
different information. 

Can be harder to...
Roles

  Complementary roles produce

better results than having each
member do the same thing. 

  Human roles work in th...
Roles

I In fascist movements individual self-
interest is subordinated to the
interests of the group. 

I Roles are defin...
Optimal Distinctiveness Theory

Tension between the need to be: 
I Similar to,  and

I Distinctive from other group
members.
Altruistic Punishment

I People will sometimes sacrifice their
own gain,  to benefit all,  by
punishing cheaters & free ride...
Deindividuation

I Loss of self-awareness & evaluation
apprehension

— Occurs more in situations which favour
expression o...
Deindividuation & Mob Violence

V Deindividuation can lead to antisocial
behavior

I Being anonymous to outsiders makes
pe...
% Who took extra

60
50
40
30
20
IO

 

Trick or Treat Study

I Identified
I Anonymous

 

Alone In Groups
Zimbardo “hood” study (1970)

I Study of deindividuation &
anonymity

I 2 conditions: 

1. Hoods & white coats
2. Wore lar...
Zimbardo “hood” study (1970)

  Asked them to deliver

shocks
  Gave longer shocks when
anOnylTlOUS  ‘
‘=1,   I
 T
Inter-Group Cooperation

I Social Dilemmas - situation in which
most rewarding short-term choice for
individual causes neg...
Problems with
Private vs.  communal ownership

Private Communal

“Inequality .  Lack of care

‘Ambition & greed “Squanderi...
The Tragedy of the Commons

A type of social trap,  often
economic,  that involves a
conflict over resources
between indiv...
The Commons Dilemma

Dilemmas: 
I Social conscience vs.  selfish impulse
I Time (Now vs.  tomorrow)

Factors influencing o...
The Prisoner’s Dilemma

B Stays Silent B Betrays

A Stays
Silent

A 10 years
B free

6 months each

A Betrays

5 years each
THE TRUCI{I HG GAME

Ar‘.  N1F'. <. "-rrvat :2 ton rt

Gate Gate
ucmrulluu   controlled
by Achdg Cine-lane road by EDLT

E...
Factors influencing cooperation in
these games

1. Cooperation increases as conflict
between own & others’ interests
decre...
Factors influencing cooperation in
these games

4. Cooperation increases when players
know each other

5. More likely to c...
Criticisms of Dilemma Games

  Assumes individuals are rational, 

motivated to maximise self-interest

I Lack ecological/...
Rejection by Groups

Rejection by groups has
more impact than acceptance

 Rejected experience drop in
self—esteem
Group Decision-Making

I Brainstorming
I Group polarisation
I Groupthink
Thinking in Groups

IThe pooling of information has many
benefits for groups and for culture

I Sometimes groups can be sm...
Are Groups Smart? 

I Brainstorming:  Originated in ad agencies
— People generate ideas together
- Interactive stimulation...
Are Groups Smart? 

“Wisdom of crowds: ” pooled group
information is often superior to single
judgments

I Stock market
I ...
Are Groups Smart? 

“Wisdom of crowds” works if. ..
I Diversity of opinion

I Independent thought process and
judgment (in...
Brainstorming

I Generation of ideas in a group to
enhance group creativity

I Does brainstorming -> greater
creativity? 
...
Brainstorming

VVhy? 

I Evaluation apprehension
I Social loafing

I Production matching

I Production blocking

Remedies
...
How Groups Think

For the collective wisdom of the
group to be better than
individual experts,  people must
act as indepen...
Transactive Memory

Members of a small group
remember different things. 

Begins at learning stage
where group can decide ...
Groupthink

  Tendency of group members to
think alike. 

  Group clings to shared but
flawed view rather than being

open...
Signs & Symptoms of Groupthink

  Becoming close-minded
Pressure toward conformity

  Appearance of unanimous
agreement

I...
Factors that Promote Groupthink

I Cohesive group

I Strong,  directive,  popular leader,  with
vision

I Dissent seems di...
Why aren’t committees effective? 

Group harmony stifles free
exchange of information

IFocus on common knowledge
rather t...
Why aren’t committees effective? 

A camel is a horse
designed by
committee.
Why aren’t committees effective? 

Too many cooks
spoil the broth.
The Wisdom of Crowds: 

Why the many are “I.    I
smarter than the THE MSDOM
feW & or caowos

How collective I  ‘I 
wisdom...
The Wisdom of Crowds

Criteria which separate
wise from irrational
crowds: 

  Diversity of opinion
Independence
Decentral...
Failures of Crowd Intelligence

Too homogenous
Too centralized
  Too divided
tToo imitative
“Too emotional
Risky Shift
(Stoner,  1961)

Tendency for group discussion to
lead to more risky decisions. 

A group is willing to take g...
Group Polarisation

Tendency of group lg.   
members to shift ‘
towards more extreme
positions as a result of
group discus...
Group Polarisation

V Movement toward either extreme (risk or
caution) resulting from group discussion

 

all-_*lr; !‘~: ...
Persuasive Arguments Theory

I During discussion,  people are exposed
to novel arguments that support initial
position

I ...
Social Comparison/ Value
Theory

I Competition between group
members to represent some
underlying valued position

I Socia...
Minimal Group Paradigm

l‘ Tajfel,  Billig,  Flament & Bundy (1971) -
minimal group experiments

l Most popular strategy w...
Social Identity Theory

I What are the minimal conditions for
intergroup conflict? 

V Is competition between groups
neces...
Intergroup Contact & Superordinate
Goals

I May reduce conflict & increase
cooperation

I Sherif’s studies - needed Superor...
Self-Categorisation Theory

I Prototype

— position that defines what group has in
common compared to outgroups

I Ingroup...
_ .  , 't  GROUP POLARISATION AS
SELF-CATEGORISATION INDUCED CONFOMITY

TO A POLARISED GROUP

— Stage 1: T

Actua d| s'. l...
Sherif’s Robbers Cave
Inter-Group Conflict Studies

I Sherif’s “Robbers Cave” summer camp studies
(Sherif,  1956)

I Parti...
Stages of experiment

I Stage 1: Arrive;  free friendship
formation

I Stage 2: Division into groups
I Stage 3: Group form...
I00 END OF STAGE 2 I00 END OF STAGE 3

--—-R Group
--- E Group

peecem
8

u
STEREOTYPE RATINGS
Important points re:  the studies

I Some ethnocentrism present before
competition

I Boys did not have authoritarian
pers...
Realistic Conflict Theory

I Mutually exclusive goals produce
intergroup conflict & ethnocentrism

I Shared goals requirin...
Conclusions

I Groups influence the behaviour of
individuals. 

I Group decisions tend to be different to
individual decis...
Conclusions

I Submerging the individual in the group
often leads to bad outcomes

I Role differentiation & division of la...
Overview:  Pt 2
(Leadership)

I Power and Leadership
Overview:  Pt 1
(Groups)

” Questions about groups
What is a group? 

Groups,  roles,  and selves
Group action

How groups...
Questions

’ What is leadership? 
I What is followership? 

What are the characteristics of
successful leaders? 

. . *. ....
Questions

I How does leaders’ behavior vary with
the situation? 

I What sources of power and influence
are used by leade...
Social Psychology of Leadership

Leadership is. ..

I A relationship

I A group phenomenon

I A form of social influence
What is Leadership? 

1 .5.» —"

1 Process of getting the I P

l

cooperation of others in ‘   - : 

accomplishing a desir...
“You know what makes
leadership?  It is the
ability to get men to do
what they don't want to
do and like it. ”

--Harry Tr...
“The most powerful kind of
leadership is to offer people
pathways and permissions to
do things they want to do but
feel un...
What is a Follower? 

I A follower is an individual who follows
the ideas,  goals,  or tasks of a leader. 

I Followers ar...
Follower Characteristics

  Identification with the leader and
the vision

  Heightened emotional levels

  Willing subord...
Leadership Characteristics

- Involves non-coercive influence
- Is goal directed
- Requires followers

noncoercive

influen...
Evolution of Leadership Theory

Behavioral Transl'mma-
styles theory tlonal theory

Situational

Trait theory theory
Modern Thought on Leadership

I The end of WWI brought the demise of
hereditary leadership

I First theories on personal q...
Traditional Leadership Theories

I Dispositional/ trait theories
- Leadership is personality traits
— Certain attributes m...
Traditional Leadership Theories

I Dispositional/ trait theories
— Introversion
— Optimism
— Need for power
— Flamboyance
...
The Trait Approach: 
Great Person Theory

Leaders possess
 34 special traits that
set them apart from
   others & that the...
Trait Theories

I Ambition & energy

trait theories of I The desire te | ead
leadershi
,  P y I Honesty &

Theories that c...
Trait Theories

Peo le tend to erceive that someone is a leader
w en he or s e exhibits certain qualities: 

I Physical
- ...
Attribution Theory

«of Leadership

Traits of a Leader

«: »Drive and Ambition -wself-Confidence

 

sDesire to Lead -rlnt...
Leadership Traits

I Traits of successful leaders
— Humble and modest
— Extreme persistence

I Traits of people perceived ...
Leaders

We perceive good leaders as
having: 

  Integrity

  Decisiveness

ICompetence

Ivision
Negative leadership traits that prevent
individuals from being leaders

I Uninformed

I Non-participative
I Rigid

I Autho...
Criticisms — Trait Theories

I No universal traits predict leadership in all
snuafions

I Unclear evidence of the cause and...
Criticisms — Trait Theories

I Provides little guidance concerning what
advice or training to give current or soon-
to-be ...
Leadership Roles

Early studies identified 3
different styles: 

I Autocratic
I Democratic
P Laissez-faire
Leadership Styles

1. The quality of group output was better under
democratic leadership. 

2. Democratic leadership took ...
Contingency Approach

‘‘vl‘
.  ‘ll -
,7 .  l. _
_/ .

Effective

leadership A , ,

behavior "  it w

depends on ‘_/ ’. /  ...
Contingency Leadership Theory

I Given the right context,  every
leadership theory or model is the
correct one. 

I There ...
Task- vs People-Oriented
Leadership

Task—Oriented Peop| e—Oriented
— task is uppermost;  — concern for subordinates’
— em...
The Continuum of Leadership Behavior
(Tannenbaum,  1974)

PUSH
 Te/ /5
Boss  Se/ /5'


 E 1
 C 0 n 5 U ,1, 3 mp oyee

 0 i...
Autocractic or Democratic? 

Reasons for a more participative or
democratic style: 

I Information or expertise exists amo...
Path-Goal Theory

Subordinates will be motivated
by a leader only to the
extent they perceive this
individual as helping t...
Path-Goal Leadership Model

Select the leadership style that is

appropriate to the situation to
maximise performance and ...
Path-Goal Leadership Styles

I Directive
— Informs subordinates of expectations,  gives
guidance,  shows how to do tasks

...
Path-Goal Leadership Styles

I Participative
— Consults with subordinates,  solicits

suggestions,  takes suggestions into...
Path-Goal Guidelines to Be
Effective Leader

If Determine the outcomes subordinates want

- e. g.,  good pay,  job securit...
Transactional &
Transformational Leadership

As a
transactional leader, 
I Lise formal rewards

& punishments. 

As a
tran...
McGregor’s Theory X & Theory Y

2 assumptions about human nature: 
1 Theory X

— Workers are passive and lazy

- Prefer to...
Servant Leadership

focus on providing
increased service to
others—meeting the
goals of both the
followers and the
organiz...
Benefits of Leading Without
Authority

I Latitude for creative deviance
- Easier to raise questions

I Issue focus

— Free...
Substitutes for Leadership

I In some situations,  leaders may not
be necessary

I Other factors may substitute for or
neu...
Workers That Are Jobs That Are
Experienced or —U'nambiguous or
Highly-Trained Highly Satisfying

is Leadership

Always Rel...
What is power? 

I Ability to get someone to do
something you want done. 

“Capacity to make things happen
in the way you ...
Effects of Power on Leaders

I Feel good
IAre reward oriented

I Changes relationships between
people

I Rely more on auto...
Effects of Power on Followers

I Followers pay extra attention to the
powerful person & try to understand

him/ her

I Peo...
Bad Bosses

  In surveys,  a majority of people

say the worst thing about their
job is their boss

  Estimates suggest ov...
Bad Bosses:  Four types

I Promoted above ability
(Peter Principle)

I Fails to build a good team
(poor hiring choices)
I ...
Dangerous Leaders

I“Emotiona|  disregard and disconnection
from others”

(Mayer,  1993)

I Indifference toward people's s...
Summary & Conclusions

I Leadership plays a central part in
understanding group behavior. 

I A lot of research has illust...
Summary & Conclusions

I Leader as an active,  flexible pursuer
of vision who influences others
towards achievement of visi...
Summary & Conclusions

  Humans gradually developed

means of transferring power
without violence

  Restricting power is ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Groups Leadership1463

2,298 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,298
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
28
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
223
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Groups Leadership1463

  1. 1. Social Psychology Groups & Leadership 2007 Lecturer: James Neill
  2. 2. Lecture Web Page http: //ucspace. canberra. edu. au/ display/7125/Lecture+Groups Readings I Ch14 Groups Baumeister, R. F. , & Bushman, B. J. (2008) Social psychology and human nature (1st ed. ) Belmont, CA: Thomson
  3. 3. Overview: Pt 1 (Groups) ” Questions about groups What is a group? Groups, roles, and selves Group action How groups think Group decision making Effects of groups on individuals Social facilitation Hawthorne effect Social loafing Intergroup conflict Co-operation between groups Self—categorisation theory Social categorisation theory
  4. 4. Questions about groups Is group behaviour different to the behaviour of individuals? fDo groups make better or worse decisions than individuals? Why do groups conflict?
  5. 5. What is a group? IHow would you define a group? IWhat are the minimal criteria for a group?
  6. 6. What is a group? if 2 >= people V “doing or being something together” Group members: V Feel similar l Share a common identity i‘ Work towards a common goal i’ Are distinguished from outgroup(s) l Depend on each other
  7. 7. What is a Group? “A collection of people, usually people who are doing or being something together. ” (Bauemeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 480)
  8. 8. What is a Group? “two or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition” (Vaughan & Hogg, 2002, p. 200)
  9. 9. What is a Group? A collection of people who: I interact with one another I accept rights & obligations I share a common identity.
  10. 10. What is a Group? Criteria: I 2 or more persons I formal social structure I common fate I common goals I interdependence I self—define as group members I recognition by others
  11. 11. Why groups? C Groups are favored by evolution If individuals compete against groups. .. Humans always live in small groups Groups are essential to culture
  12. 12. Advantages of Animal Groups I Safety in numbers I Vigilance: even if just one spots the danger, or opportunity I Sharing resources I Working together, increased power
  13. 13. Advantages of Human Groups Role differentiation, division of labor -Everything is done by experts —Assembly line example ‘ Accumulation of knowledge —Transmittal to next generation —Can reorganize the group based on information, ideas Economic exchange
  14. 14. Advantages of Human Groups In human evolution “Safety in numbers Help others find food Accomplish tasks that are too difficult for the individual
  15. 15. Advantages of Human Groups Cultural groups I Preserve information and pass it along to future generations I Use information to organize themselves I Benefit from role differentiation and division of labor
  16. 16. Studying Groups I The whole (group) can be more than the sum of its parts I But sometimes it is much less I Hence one challenge for social psychologists: Understand the advantages and disadvantages of group process
  17. 17. Social Facilitation I The tendency to perform well when others are present I Classic study by Triplett — Children wind string on a fishing reel faster when working with others present
  18. 18. Social Facilitation In 1897, Norman Triplett noticed that bicycle racers usually made better times in group competition than alone.
  19. 19. Social Facilitation I But sometimes the presence of others makes performance worse (social inhibition) I Zajonc noticed that the presence of others is arousing — Arousal has been known to enhance the dominant response
  20. 20. Facilitation vs. Loafing I Social facilitation is found in many animals I Social loafing is uniquely human — If people are not held responsible, they will not contribute to the group — People are naturally inclined to notice and punish social loafers and cheaters
  21. 21. Facilitation vs. Loafing Individual _ _ efforts _, Evaluation _, Social evaluated apprehension Facilitation Presence of others Individual . . < efforts not No evaluation __, Social evaluated apprehension Loafing
  22. 22. Social Facilitation Theory I Presence of others is arousing I Arousal increases the “dominant response, ” whatever it is — Familiar tasks: dominant response is success, so this increases when others are present — Unfamiliar tasks: dominant response is failure, so this too increases when others are present I Same for other kinds of dominant response — E. g., talkers talk more, silent types clam up more
  23. 23. Social Facilitation In a social situation, would a violinist: V Perform a well-rehearsed piece well? i Perform a difficult piece poorly? {.3 _‘ ‘ ~~ I ‘ff. 1 u. .. s_. A’, ,_ , '1' . "3’ ~: ‘: ; “.. ‘I. I ‘ ". ¢~ . . I '. .‘. '. . .t. -"}. ‘?3'- . “ ‘ ‘I', ‘.uI. I.'I ~I". ".‘I_. Q I -3"", . . . . . L , ‘‘‘‘_‘_‘Q . _ _ _ 4 'l an. ..-v . .-<1-. . .4, , ,_. ,.. "-'i', _''L'. '.3‘. ‘R‘. '.'. ;r> A : . . . . . . --i. .-_. - ‘iP*~lCli'r’_'. " I i. ‘. n . . : n ' . I_‘? ’,. .' 41’-: “.. ‘>l. “- ‘ ‘. ':. . I . Sr» 3.-' -. -; .z . -:-u. ". ', '. .' ': '- "-'- ' 1"’: -', "i' ' " . - . .u. ~-'. '.', -. ‘~v‘_ 1‘ ‘I I“ ~ '. ."‘| ‘ ‘J
  24. 24. Social Facilitation Theory I Presence of others facilitates dominant response (Allport, 1920) I Theory of social facilitation (Zajonc, 1965) — Presence of others increases arousal — Arousal increases dominant response I If the dominant response is correct, performance increases. I If the dominant response is incorrect, performance decreases. I Presence of others can improve people's performance, especially familiar, easy tasks I However, presence of others facilitates performance on skilled tasks, impairs performance on unskilled tasks
  25. 25. Cockroach Studies (Zajonc, et al. , 1969) I Simple mazes more quickly when they ran in the presence of 4 other cockroaches than when they ran alone. I Completed complex mazes more quickly when they ran alone than when they ran in the presence of 4 other cockroaches
  26. 26. Running time 250 Simple Task dlfilculty Complex
  27. 27. Pool Hall Study: Enhancing the dominant response 100 T O epetu S10Li| S }0 % -h 01 O3 ~l C G C 100$ OD _x O l Others Present , T‘ Alone Expert Novice r i l
  28. 28. Why does this happen? Evaluation apprehension — concern about being judged Presence of Evaluation Arousal Dominant others apprehension Response What if people do not think they are being evaluated?
  29. 29. Evaluation Apprehension Model (Cottrell, 1972) Apprehension about evaluation -> arousal -> increased drive & social facilitation
  30. 30. Time taken (seconds) Time taken for an easy and a difficult typing task as a function of social 75 65 55 45 35 25 presence Difficult task ZR Alone Mere presence Experimental Condition Easy task Evaluation apprehension
  31. 31. Distraction-conflict theory (Baron, 1986; Sanders, 1983) I Conflict occurs when person simultaneously pays attention to task & others I Conflict -> arousal -> increased drive & social facilitation
  32. 32. Tendency to pay attention to audience or coactors . l l l l . Individual presence of _ l _ _ Increased 30°13] perfoiming audience or -Attentional F arousalldrive fggllllallon “ask coactors Conflict l l C ems F . .-—— ‘T ' . Tendency to pay attention to task
  33. 33. Zajonc’s Drive Theory of Social Facilitation (Zajonc, 1965) Mere physical presence of others leads to arousal, motivating performance of domina t response (best learned, most habitual). If Social facilitation correct Increase in Presence _’ ‘ performing of others dominant responses Social inhibition —F
  34. 34. The Hawthorne Effect I The benefits you reap when you pay attention to people. I The act of showing people you are interested in them usually spurs them to better job performance. I Also known as the ‘Somebody upstairs cares’ syndrome. I This was a tremendous break from the idea that industrial man was motivated by economic means only.
  35. 35. The Hawthorne Effect People who know c that they are being :5 _; ., observed modify ,4 *- their behavior not r“ only consciously I but also unconscio usl y. «ré .33
  36. 36. Social Loafing I People often reduce effort when working in a group I “Tug of War” Study - Worked alone or in groups — Do you work harder as part of a team? - Alone - 85 kg/ person - In groups - 61-65 kg/ person
  37. 37. Social Loafing A reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task compared to working alone. P Coordination loss - losses of productivity due to problems of coordinating individual members la Motivation loss — losses due to decreases in individual members’ motivation
  38. 38. Social Loafing Ringlemann (1913) — less effort per person exerted when rope pulling in a group vs. alone. A Latane, Williams & Harkins (1979) - performance decreased as group size increased.
  39. 39. Social Loafing I Factors: — Not individually identified or accountable — Not wanting to be a ‘sucker’ — Bad apple effect I Countering: — When one’s cooperation is unique to the group, less likely to loaf. - Identifying people in groups & holding them accountable produces better results.
  40. 40. Reduction in volume of individual shout in 2- person & 6-person real & pseudo-groups . ... . . .P. Qt. <?.11I. i.3.1.l? ¢IfQ1.TI1?.1I.1.C$? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motivation loss. 100 reduced effort, Pseudo groups . - social loafing ca GO -5 8 Coordination '5 loss 5 O Real groups = *5 ‘<7 -5 c ‘=5 e o a— ~ 5 N . . : *'-' IE. ’ :3 .2 0 -:2 O 9.. .E 1 2 3 4 5 6 Group size (persons)
  41. 41. Why Does Social Loafing Occur? Output equity Evaluation apprehension IMatching to standard Diffusion of individual responsibility as group size increases (Latane, 1981).
  42. 42. Collective Effort Model (CEM) (Karau & Williams, 1993) Links between individual’s efforts & their outcomes weaker when working with others in a group.
  43. 43. Collective Effort Model (CEM) Individuals Working Alone Individuals Working with Others in Groups Group Share of Performance available rewards
  44. 44. Collective Effort Model (CEM) Individuals work hard on a task when: 1. Believe working hard will lead to a better performance 2. Believe better performance will be recognised & rewarded 3. Rewards are ones they value & desire
  45. 45. Ways to i Social Loafing I T identifiability I T value of task I T uniqueness of contributions I T group cohesiveness I T identification with the group (e. g., Hok,1987)
  46. 46. Diverse Groups Can be more creative & flexible. IBetter chance of bringing in different information. Can be harder to cooperate & work together.
  47. 47. Roles Complementary roles produce better results than having each member do the same thing. Human roles work in the context of large systems where most people do different things.
  48. 48. Roles I In fascist movements individual self- interest is subordinated to the interests of the group. I Roles are defined by the system; exist independent of the person in that role. I People need to be flexible to take on & drop roles.
  49. 49. Optimal Distinctiveness Theory Tension between the need to be: I Similar to, and I Distinctive from other group members.
  50. 50. Altruistic Punishment I People will sometimes sacrifice their own gain, to benefit all, by punishing cheaters & free riders I May be considered guarding the culture —Culture depends on a system; cheat the system, ruin it for all
  51. 51. Deindividuation I Loss of self-awareness & evaluation apprehension — Occurs more in situations which favour expression of group norms
  52. 52. Deindividuation & Mob Violence V Deindividuation can lead to antisocial behavior I Being anonymous to outsiders makes people more willing to violate norms I Stop worrying about what others think of them - more willing to behave badly rt Accountability is best predictor of aggression
  53. 53. % Who took extra 60 50 40 30 20 IO Trick or Treat Study I Identified I Anonymous Alone In Groups
  54. 54. Zimbardo “hood” study (1970) I Study of deindividuation & anonymity I 2 conditions: 1. Hoods & white coats 2. Wore large name tags
  55. 55. Zimbardo “hood” study (1970) Asked them to deliver shocks Gave longer shocks when anOnylTlOUS ‘ ‘=1, I T
  56. 56. Inter-Group Cooperation I Social Dilemmas - situation in which most rewarding short-term choice for individual causes negative consequences for group as a whole I Commons Dilemma - if all cooperate, all gain; if all compete, all lose
  57. 57. Problems with Private vs. communal ownership Private Communal “Inequality . Lack of care ‘Ambition & greed “Squandering shared resources
  58. 58. The Tragedy of the Commons A type of social trap, often economic, that involves a conflict over resources between individual interests and the common good.
  59. 59. The Commons Dilemma Dilemmas: I Social conscience vs. selfish impulse I Time (Now vs. tomorrow) Factors influencing outcome: I Communication I Behavior of others
  60. 60. The Prisoner’s Dilemma B Stays Silent B Betrays A Stays Silent A 10 years B free 6 months each A Betrays 5 years each
  61. 61. THE TRUCI{I HG GAME Ar‘. N1F'. <. "-rrvat :2 ton rt Gate Gate ucmrulluu controlled by Achdg Cine-lane road by EDLT E -11 LTS orlwn a road Note: Two participants play . =. game where they work for : a'. .‘| .).1lJ[. ' uugkiing Luinipaiiiur. :| i.-l : i.. iu: .puI I 3,-uudn [lulu urn. - pI: uc-, "- to run“ 31': -er. Thny c: i '1 u. <r~ trawl" own prl'. .'-'tt-’- roacle. but there is. also .3 much : ‘.| ‘i-after srared IOJCE which was the L v¢1uvL'.1:_| ~'. ul I‘ -1VIIl’_l-V a Lwit-9-larloa sen li'_'n’ a Source: D-5.l1%f. 'l’1 8- (rune: (1q~. ’~. t.‘-).
  62. 62. Factors influencing cooperation in these games 1. Cooperation increases as conflict between own & others’ interests decreases 2. Cooperation increases as rewards for coop increase 3. Communication increases cooperation
  63. 63. Factors influencing cooperation in these games 4. Cooperation increases when players know each other 5. More likely to cooperate with ingroup members 6. Increased no. of participants leads to increased conflict 7. Initial social value orientation - competitive vs. cooperative
  64. 64. Criticisms of Dilemma Games Assumes individuals are rational, motivated to maximise self-interest I Lack ecological/ external validity Are they about intergroup cooperation?
  65. 65. Rejection by Groups Rejection by groups has more impact than acceptance Rejected experience drop in self—esteem
  66. 66. Group Decision-Making I Brainstorming I Group polarisation I Groupthink
  67. 67. Thinking in Groups IThe pooling of information has many benefits for groups and for culture I Sometimes groups can be smarter than individuals, even smarter than experts I But sometimes groups can be incredibly stupid
  68. 68. Are Groups Smart? I Brainstorming: Originated in ad agencies — People generate ideas together - Interactive stimulation of creative energy I Intuitively appealing I Exciting, enjoyable I But not creative: less quality and quantity than working alone
  69. 69. Are Groups Smart? “Wisdom of crowds: ” pooled group information is often superior to single judgments I Stock market I Betting lines on sports events I Polling
  70. 70. Are Groups Smart? “Wisdom of crowds” works if. .. I Diversity of opinion I Independent thought process and judgment (instead of pressure to conform) I Pooled information, central ‘clearinghouse’ I Leaders can help OR harm this process
  71. 71. Brainstorming I Generation of ideas in a group to enhance group creativity I Does brainstorming -> greater creativity? I People enjoy the process & evaluate it favorably I Output is lower than individuals working alone I Nominal groups outperform ‘real’ interactive clroups.
  72. 72. Brainstorming VVhy? I Evaluation apprehension I Social loafing I Production matching I Production blocking Remedies I Electronic brainstorming I Heterogenous groups
  73. 73. How Groups Think For the collective wisdom of the group to be better than individual experts, people must act as independent members of a group and share their diverse information
  74. 74. Transactive Memory Members of a small group remember different things. Begins at learning stage where group can decide roles for learning different things.
  75. 75. Groupthink Tendency of group members to think alike. Group clings to shared but flawed view rather than being open to the truth (Janus, 1972, 1982). Roots in desire to get along.
  76. 76. Signs & Symptoms of Groupthink Becoming close-minded Pressure toward conformity Appearance of unanimous agreement Illusion of invulnerability Sense of moral superiority ITendency to overestimate opponents
  77. 77. Factors that Promote Groupthink I Cohesive group I Strong, directive, popular leader, with vision I Dissent seems disloyal and personal I “Mindguards” and other pressures to conform, including stifling dissent I Isolation from others I Group has high se| f—regard and moral self- righteousness, sense of superiority
  78. 78. Why aren’t committees effective? Group harmony stifles free exchange of information IFocus on common knowledge rather than unique information people have
  79. 79. Why aren’t committees effective? A camel is a horse designed by committee.
  80. 80. Why aren’t committees effective? Too many cooks spoil the broth.
  81. 81. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the many are “I. I smarter than the THE MSDOM feW & or caowos How collective I ‘I wisdom shapes business, _ _ . ,_ economies, socIeties§_; '?' s. r‘vy 1’ -'= ‘-"“«“~ 1.’ ‘”-*, ... °.. 5 & nations .
  82. 82. The Wisdom of Crowds Criteria which separate wise from irrational crowds: Diversity of opinion Independence Decentralization I Aggregation
  83. 83. Failures of Crowd Intelligence Too homogenous Too centralized Too divided tToo imitative “Too emotional
  84. 84. Risky Shift (Stoner, 1961) Tendency for group discussion to lead to more risky decisions. A group is willing to take greater risks than individuals (on average).
  85. 85. Group Polarisation Tendency of group lg. members to shift ‘ towards more extreme positions as a result of group discussion. . ' ‘ ; “ 1.. ‘‘. ‘‘-‘*‘f‘‘‘. ‘I . .‘. ;: .v{'~; Tt. }'; l._r': ' . .: . . ;' -~wf—t'. N’ §' /3*. ‘ '1 '3 :23 ~ -~. , r‘. __ 7 _ . ‘x I_(‘' vs ' - ‘T ‘I 7" 4 . ,, .
  86. 86. Group Polarisation V Movement toward either extreme (risk or caution) resulting from group discussion all-_*lr; !‘~: +3l9:n sllml! l~1-'l!2al
  87. 87. Persuasive Arguments Theory I During discussion, people are exposed to novel arguments that support initial position I Become more convinced of initial position I BUT - group polarisation is found in studies involving perceptual judgements
  88. 88. Social Comparison/ Value Theory I Competition between group members to represent some underlying valued position I Social comparison - strive to represent most valued (extreme) position I BUT — group polarisation occurs for ‘non-value’ judgements
  89. 89. Minimal Group Paradigm l‘ Tajfel, Billig, Flament & Bundy (1971) - minimal group experiments l Most popular strategy was to favour the ingroup as much as possible. l Ingroup bias occurs in absence of personal gain & intergroup competition.
  90. 90. Social Identity Theory I What are the minimal conditions for intergroup conflict? V Is competition between groups necessary (& sufficient) for intergroup conflict? l Mere categorisation into groups sufficient to produce intergroup conflict. l Interdependence & conflict of interest not necessary for bias against outgroups.
  91. 91. Intergroup Contact & Superordinate Goals I May reduce conflict & increase cooperation I Sherif’s studies - needed Superordinate goals in addition to contact to produce cooperation I Superordinate goals only work if goal is achieved I Failure may worsen intergroup relations - attributed to outgroup I Recategorisation (Common Ingroup Identity Model)
  92. 92. Self-Categorisation Theory I Prototype — position that defines what group has in common compared to outgroups I Ingroup members conform to prototype or ingroup norm I Tends to be polarised in intergroup contexts
  93. 93. _ . , 't GROUP POLARISATION AS SELF-CATEGORISATION INDUCED CONFOMITY TO A POLARISED GROUP — Stage 1: T Actua d| s'. lI_L‘ul on of | Il0"CU7] IIDSII 01s 01 an 3llI'. _J_dIl| :lI dimsns oI"'.1S<E')al| ? pm New“ 9”” ‘c)3fl'20an'Sa 33153 ir$Cn‘srr. .-‘a liy pecple1o'. i'1he grouo. Mean ”"”“ Stage '2: I-lercc omal nnlarlsatnn ol the n': 'oun ntrm F'l‘rny fmrn DOSIIIOIIS 10ll1C| d by ln0’cuJ Fcmbtrs F10 NE U'. l3l . ".ll[l lxlc-rm Stage 3; lnljrou: mr11t: nrs«: onl: nrrr. tnthe pnlarismlnrjrn p nnrm_ rausmg lhe mstrmutlon of inorzm rosi‘ 013 to he bum hmngrnlscd and Pro Neu‘ra Ant polarised. Note: Gro. .p polarisation can occur because people categorise tltennselve-s n terms 0', and co 1lonnto, anl1gvo. p n: l~; -line-cl by a no"n that Is polarised away from posltlors not he d by ingroup members.
  94. 94. Sherif’s Robbers Cave Inter-Group Conflict Studies I Sherif’s “Robbers Cave” summer camp studies (Sherif, 1956) I Participants: 11-12 year old boys I Homogenous background: white, protestant, lower middle class SES, same level of pubescence, mentally “normal” I Researchers were camp counsellors I Hidden microphone and cameras I Parents gave permission, boys unaware they were participating in experiment
  95. 95. Stages of experiment I Stage 1: Arrive; free friendship formation I Stage 2: Division into groups I Stage 3: Group formation I Stage 4: Intergroup competition I Stage 5: Cooperation for a superordinate goal
  96. 96. I00 END OF STAGE 2 I00 END OF STAGE 3 --—-R Group --- E Group peecem 8 u STEREOTYPE RATINGS
  97. 97. Important points re: the studies I Some ethnocentrism present before competition I Boys did not have authoritarian personalities I Ingroups formed even though friends were outgroup members I Mere contact was insufficient to improve intergroup relations
  98. 98. Realistic Conflict Theory I Mutually exclusive goals produce intergroup conflict & ethnocentrism I Shared goals requiring intergroup interdependence for achievement reduce conflict, promote cooperation I Conflict will not occur when there is no personal gain for individuals in groups
  99. 99. Conclusions I Groups influence the behaviour of individuals. I Group decisions tend to be different to individual decisions (but not necessarily worse) I Conflict between groups — realistic conflict theory vs. social identity theory.
  100. 100. Conclusions I Submerging the individual in the group often leads to bad outcomes I Role differentiation & division of labor make human groups effective
  101. 101. Overview: Pt 2 (Leadership) I Power and Leadership
  102. 102. Overview: Pt 1 (Groups) ” Questions about groups What is a group? Groups, roles, and selves Group action How groups think Group decision making Effects of groups on individuals Social facilitation Hawthorne effect Social loafing Intergroup conflict Co-operation between groups Self—Categorisation theory Social categorisation theory
  103. 103. Questions ’ What is leadership? I What is followership? What are the characteristics of successful leaders? . . *. .. :10 3:) I Do leaders show distinctive patterns of behavior? What leadership styles are there?
  104. 104. Questions I How does leaders’ behavior vary with the situation? I What sources of power and influence are used by leaders? I What are the effects of different types of leadership? I Can we do without leadership? I How can leadership skills be developed?
  105. 105. Social Psychology of Leadership Leadership is. .. I A relationship I A group phenomenon I A form of social influence
  106. 106. What is Leadership? 1 .5.» —" 1 Process of getting the I P l cooperation of others in ‘ - : accomplishing a desired 1’ , ‘Ii V Ability to influence a to group toward the ‘ achievement of goals.
  107. 107. “You know what makes leadership? It is the ability to get men to do what they don't want to do and like it. ” --Harry Truman
  108. 108. “The most powerful kind of leadership is to offer people pathways and permissions to do things they want to do but feel unable to do for themselves. That sort of energy evokes energies within people that far exceed the powers of coercion. ” (Palmer 1993)
  109. 109. What is a Follower? I A follower is an individual who follows the ideas, goals, or tasks of a leader. I Followers are developed by working together to identify goals and strategies for achieving the goals.
  110. 110. Follower Characteristics Identification with the leader and the vision Heightened emotional levels Willing subordination to the leader I Feelings of empowerment
  111. 111. Leadership Characteristics - Involves non-coercive influence - Is goal directed - Requires followers noncoercive influence Leader
  112. 112. Evolution of Leadership Theory Behavioral Transl'mma- styles theory tlonal theory Situational Trait theory theory
  113. 113. Modern Thought on Leadership I The end of WWI brought the demise of hereditary leadership I First theories on personal qualities or traits I After WWII, shift to observable behaviours I 1960's - Situational leadership I Recently - transactional to transformational leadership
  114. 114. Traditional Leadership Theories I Dispositional/ trait theories - Leadership is personality traits — Certain attributes make a great leader I Behavior theories — Leadership is what someone does I Situational (contingency) theories — Leadership is situational/ contingent. — Interaction between leader & situation — Someone may be an effective leader in one circumstance but ineffective in a different circumstance.
  115. 115. Traditional Leadership Theories I Dispositional/ trait theories — Introversion — Optimism — Need for power — Flamboyance I Behavior theories — Theory X — Expressive — Participative I Situational (contingency) theories — Situational characteristics: - Stability, Uncertainty, Complexity (remember “contingency”)
  116. 116. The Trait Approach: Great Person Theory Leaders possess 34 special traits that set them apart from others & that these 1 _ traits are responsible for their assuming positions of power & authority.
  117. 117. Trait Theories I Ambition & energy trait theories of I The desire te | ead leadershi , P y I Honesty & Theories that consider inte rity personality, social, physical, g or intellectual traits to I Self-oonfidenoe differentiate leaders from nonleaders. I Intelligence I Job-relevant knowledge
  118. 118. Trait Theories Peo le tend to erceive that someone is a leader w en he or s e exhibits certain qualities: I Physical - health, vitality, older, heavier, endurance I Character - integrity, credibility humanistic, self-disciplined, stable, & industrious I Intellectual - intelligent, ability to teach others, scientific approach to problems. I Personal qualities - self-confidence, articulation, high energy, active masculine, task- relevant knowledge and competence, emotionally controlled, dominant, popular (charismatic), cooperative, enthusiastic, inspiring, persuasive, forceful & tactful.
  119. 119. Attribution Theory «of Leadership Traits of a Leader «: »Drive and Ambition -wself-Confidence sDesire to Lead -rlntelligence -Honesty 8: Integrity wTechnical Expertise
  120. 120. Leadership Traits I Traits of successful leaders — Humble and modest — Extreme persistence I Traits of people perceived as good leaders - Decisive — Competent at group tasks — Possess integrity — Honest and good moral character — Have vision
  121. 121. Leaders We perceive good leaders as having: Integrity Decisiveness ICompetence Ivision
  122. 122. Negative leadership traits that prevent individuals from being leaders I Uninformed I Non-participative I Rigid I Authoritarian I Offensive
  123. 123. Criticisms — Trait Theories I No universal traits predict leadership in all snuafions I Unclear evidence of the cause and effect of relationship of leadership and traits. (Which comes first, trait or leadership position? ) I Traits predict behavior better in “weak" than “strong” situations.
  124. 124. Criticisms — Trait Theories I Provides little guidance concerning what advice or training to give current or soon- to-be leaders I Better predictor of the appearance of leadership than distinguishing effective and ineffective leaders. I Overlooks needs of followers I Fails to clarify trait's relative importance.
  125. 125. Leadership Roles Early studies identified 3 different styles: I Autocratic I Democratic P Laissez-faire
  126. 126. Leadership Styles 1. The quality of group output was better under democratic leadership. 2. Democratic leadership took more time than autocratic. 3. Member satisfaction was higher under democratic leadership. 4. The democratic group had the lowest absenteeism. 5. The democratic group fostered more independence.
  127. 127. Contingency Approach ‘‘vl‘ . ‘ll - ,7 . l. _ _/ . Effective leadership A , , behavior " it w depends on ‘_/ ’. / ti’ ‘»s. / the situation at . hand ‘ bs.
  128. 128. Contingency Leadership Theory I Given the right context, every leadership theory or model is the correct one. I There is no one best style of leadership I Leadership style must match the situation
  129. 129. Task- vs People-Oriented Leadership Task—Oriented Peop| e—Oriented — task is uppermost; — concern for subordinates’ — employee needs close needs} supervision; — climate building; — supervisor upset when — inquiries about tasks not accomplished; problems; — human aspect — can be counterproductive neglected; if “overdone”. — regular checks on work progress; — perceived as “tough”;
  130. 130. The Continuum of Leadership Behavior (Tannenbaum, 1974) PUSH Te/ /5 Boss Se/ /5' E 1 C 0 n 5 U ,1, 3 mp oyee 0 ins AUTOCRAT RPULL DEMOCRAT
  131. 131. Autocractic or Democratic? Reasons for a more participative or democratic style: I Information or expertise exists among subordinates I Greater understanding, acceptance and support of decision by subordinates
  132. 132. Path-Goal Theory Subordinates will be motivated by a leader only to the extent they perceive this individual as helping them to attain valued goals.
  133. 133. Path-Goal Leadership Model Select the leadership style that is appropriate to the situation to maximise performance and job satisfaction.
  134. 134. Path-Goal Leadership Styles I Directive — Informs subordinates of expectations, gives guidance, shows how to do tasks I Supportive — Friendly and approachable, shows concern for status, well—being and needs of subordinates
  135. 135. Path-Goal Leadership Styles I Participative — Consults with subordinates, solicits suggestions, takes suggestions into consideration I Achievement oriented — Sets challenging goals, expects subordinates to perform at highest level, continuously seeks improvement in performance, has confidence in highest motivations of employees
  136. 136. Path-Goal Guidelines to Be Effective Leader If Determine the outcomes subordinates want - e. g., good pay, job security, interesting work, and autonomy to do one’s job, etc. I Reward individuals with their desired outcomes when they perform well I‘ Be clear with expectations — Let individuals know what they need to do to receive rewards (the path to the goal) - Remove barriers that prevent high performance — Express confidence that individuals have the ability to perform well
  137. 137. Transactional & Transformational Leadership As a transactional leader, I Lise formal rewards & punishments. As a transfoi*im1tioi1al leader, I inspire and excite followers to high levels of performance.
  138. 138. McGregor’s Theory X & Theory Y 2 assumptions about human nature: 1 Theory X — Workers are passive and lazy - Prefer to be led — Resist change I’ Theory Y — Management's basis task is to ensure that workers meet their important needs while they work Either theory can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  139. 139. Servant Leadership focus on providing increased service to others—meeting the goals of both the followers and the organization—rather than themselves
  140. 140. Benefits of Leading Without Authority I Latitude for creative deviance - Easier to raise questions I Issue focus — Freedom to focus on single issue, rather than many issues I Frontline information - Often closer to the people who have the information
  141. 141. Substitutes for Leadership I In some situations, leaders may not be necessary I Other factors may substitute for or neutralise leader's influence
  142. 142. Workers That Are Jobs That Are Experienced or —U'nambiguous or Highly-Trained Highly Satisfying is Leadership Always Relevant? Goals That Are : F-ormalized or Rules That Are Rigid Workgroups That Are Cohesive
  143. 143. What is power? I Ability to get someone to do something you want done. “Capacity to make things happen in the way you want. I Extent to which 1 person can exert more force on other group members than they, in turn, can exert to resist the powerful person's intentions.
  144. 144. Effects of Power on Leaders I Feel good IAre reward oriented I Changes relationships between people I Rely more on automatic processing I Removes inhibitions against taking action
  145. 145. Effects of Power on Followers I Followers pay extra attention to the powerful person & try to understand him/ her I People with less power will be prone to fostering peace & harmony I People low in power adapt to the expectations of high-power people
  146. 146. Bad Bosses In surveys, a majority of people say the worst thing about their job is their boss Estimates suggest over 50% of managers in America are incompetent or otherwise bad
  147. 147. Bad Bosses: Four types I Promoted above ability (Peter Principle) I Fails to build a good team (poor hiring choices) I Poor interpersonal skills (arrogant, etc. ) leading to conflicts I Undermines the group (e. g., betrays trust)
  148. 148. Dangerous Leaders I“Emotiona| disregard and disconnection from others” (Mayer, 1993) I Indifference toward people's suffering, devaluation of people generally I Intolerant of criticism (e. g., suppressing dissent) I Grandiose sense of national entitlement
  149. 149. Summary & Conclusions I Leadership plays a central part in understanding group behavior. I A lot of research has illustrated the complexity of leadership. I Leadership as person, role, & situation. I Literature provides some support for the role of individual differences —Appear to be key skill and traits for associated with effective leadership
  150. 150. Summary & Conclusions I Leader as an active, flexible pursuer of vision who influences others towards achievement of vision. I No one style of leadership is always the preferred leadership style. I Leadership is not value- & culture- bound. I Leadership may not be necessary given the right conditions.
  151. 151. Summary & Conclusions Humans gradually developed means of transferring power without violence Restricting power is one great achievement of human culture

×