Groups & Leadership

Social Psychology
Groups & Leadership
2008
Lecturer: James Neill

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
Reading
Baumeister & Bushman (2008):
Ch14: Groups

Is group behaviour different to the behaviour of individuals?
Do groups make better or worse decisions than individuals?
Why do groups conflict?

What is a group?
How would you define a (social) group?
What are the minimal criteria for a group?

What is a group?
2 or more people
“doing or being something together”
Group members:
Feel similar
Share a common identity
Work towards a common goal
Are distinguished from outgroup(s)
Depend on each other

What is a group?
“ A collection of people, usually people who are doing or being something together.” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 480)

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)

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

What is a group?
Criteria:
2 or more persons
formal social structure
common fate
common goals
interdependence
self-define as group members
recognition by others

Why groups?
Groups are favoured by evolution:
If individuals compete against groups…
Humans always live in small groups
Groups are essential to culture

Advantages of animal groups
Safety in numbers
Vigilance: even if just one spots the danger, or opportunity
Sharing resources
Working together,  s power

Advantages of human groups
Role differentiation & division of labour
Everything is done by experts e.g., assembly lines
Accumulation of knowledge
Transmit to next generation
Economic exchange

Advantages of human groups
In human evolution:
Safety in numbers
Help others find food
Accomplish tasks that are too difficult for the individual

Studying groups
The whole (group) can be more than the sum of its parts
But sometimes it is much less
Hence one challenge for social psychologists: Understand the advantages and disadvantages of group process

Social facilitation
The tendency to perform well when others are present
Classic study by Triplett (1897):
Noticed that bicycle racers usually made better times in group competition than alone.
Children wind string on a fishing reel faster when working with others present

Social facilitation
But sometimes the presence of others makes performance worse (social inhibition)
Zajonc noticed that the presence of others is arousing
Arousal has been known to enhance the dominant response

Facilitation vs. loafing
Social facilitation is found in many animals
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

Social Facilitation Theory
Mere presence of others is arousing, which facilitates the “dominant response”. Hence, for:
Familiar tasks : dominant response is success, so this  s when others are present
Unfamiliar tasks : dominant response is failure, so this too  s when others are present
Same for other kinds of dominant response e.g., talkers talk more, silent types clam up more

Yerkes-Dodson Law Arousal Performance Optimal arousal: Difficult task Optimal arousal: Easy task

Zajonc’s Drive Theory of Social Facilitation (1965) Presence of others Arousal  in performing dominant responses If correct If incorrect Social facilitation Social inhibition Mere physical presence of others leads to arousal, motivating performance of dominant response (best learned, most habitual).

Social Facilitation
In a social situation, would a violinist perform a:
well-rehearsed piece well?
difficult piece poorly?

Fig. 14-2, p. 487

Social Facilitation Theory
Zajonc et al. (1969) got cockroaches to run down a clear tube towards a light:
They ran faster when watched by other cockroaches.
When put in a simple maze, it took them longer when they were being watched.

Pool Hall Study (Michaels et al., 1982): Novice 30% Expert 70% % of shots made

Why does this happen?
Evaluation apprehension – concern about being judged
Apprehension about evaluation  arousal   d drive & social facilitation
e.g., Schmitt et al. (1986)

Evaluation Apprehension Model (Cottrell, 1972) Experimental Condition Time taken (seconds) Alone Mere presence Evaluation apprehension 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75        Easy task Difficult task

Distraction-conflict theory (Baron, 1986; Sanders, 1983)
Conflict occurs when person simultaneously pays attention to task & others
Conflict  arousal   d drive & social facilitation
e.g., Sanders, Baron & Moore (1978)

Distraction-conflict theory Individual performing a task Presence of audience or coactors Tendency to pay attention to task Tendency to pay attention to audience or coactors Attentional conflict  d arousal/drive Social facilitation effects

Distraction: Drive/Conflict Theory of Social Facilitation
The act of showing people you are interested in them usually spurs them to better job performance.
Also known as the ‘Somebody upstairs cares’ syndrome.
This was a tremendous break from the idea that industrial man was motivated by economic means only.

The Hawthorne Effect People who know that they are being observed modify their behavior not only consciously but also unconsciously .

Social loafing
People often  effort when working in a group.
Ringlemann (1913) - less effort per person exerted when rope pulling in a group vs. alone.
Latane, Williams & Harkins (1979) - performance  d as group size  d.

“ Tug of War” Study (Ringelmann)
Alone - pulled ~ 85 kg / person
In groups – pulled
~ 61-65 kg / person

A reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task compared to working alone.
Coordination loss - losses of productivity due to problems of coordinating individual members
Motivation loss - losses due to  s in individual members’ motivation
Social loafing

Reduction in volume of individual shout in 2-person & 6-person real & pseudo-groups 0 20 40 60 80 100 Group size (persons) Percentage reduction in individual shout 1 2 3 4 5 6        Real groups Pseudo groups ………………………………… .. Potential performance Coordination loss Motivation loss,  d effort, social loafing

Social loafing
Factors:
Not individually identifiable or accountable
Not wanting to be a ‘sucker’
Bad apple effect
Countering:
When one’s cooperation is unique to the group, less likely to loaf.
Identifying people in groups & holding them accountable produces better results.

Why does social loafing occur?
Output equity
Evaluation apprehension
Matching to standard
Diffusion of individual responsibility as group size  s (Latane, 1981).

Collective Effort Model (CEM) (Karau & Williams, 1993)
Links between individual’s efforts & their outcomes weaker when working with others in a group.

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

Ways to  social loafing
Increase:
identifiability
value of task
uniqueness of contributions
group cohesiveness
identification with the group (e.g., Holt, 1987)

Diverse Groups
Can be more creative & flexible.
Better chance of bringing in different information.
Can be harder to cooperate & work together.

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.

Roles
In fascist movements individual self-interest is subordinated to the interests of the group.
Roles are defined by the system; exist independent of the person in that role.
People need to be flexible to take on & drop roles.

Optimal Distinctiveness Theory
Tension between the need to be:
similar to, and
distinctive from other group members.

Altruistic Punishment
People will sometimes sacrifice their own gain, to benefit all, by punishing cheaters & free riders
May be considered guarding the culture
Culture depends on a system; cheat the system, ruin it for all

Deindividuation
Loss of self-awareness & evaluation apprehension
Occurs more in situations which favour expression of group norms
Can lead to antisocial behavior:
being anonymous makes people more willing to violate norms
Stop worrying about what others think
Accountability is best predictor of aggression

Trick or Treat Study % Who took extra

Two conditions:
Hoods & white coats
Wore large name tags
Asked them to deliver shocks
Gave longer shocks when anonymous
Zimbardo “hood” study (1970)

Social cooperation dilemmas
Social Dilemmas - situation in which most rewarding short-term choice for individual causes negative consequences for group as a whole
Commons Dilemma - if all cooperate, all gain; if all compete, all lose

Social dilemmas & inter-group cooperation
Lack of care
Squandering shared resources
Inequality
Ambition & greed
Communal Private

Problems with private vs. communal ownership
Dilemmas:
Social conscience vs. selfish impulse
Time (Now vs. tomorrow)
Factors influencing outcome:
Communication
Behaviour of others

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 .

The prisoner’s dilemma 5 years each A free B 10 years A Betrays A 10 years B free 6 months each A Stays Silent B Betrays B Stays Silent

1. Cooperation  s as conflict between own & others’ interests  s
2. Cooperation  s as rewards for coop 
3. Communication  s cooperation
4. Cooperation  s when players know each other
5. More likely to cooperate with ingroup members
6.  d no. of participants leads to  d conflict
7. Initial social value orientation - competitive vs. cooperative
Factors influencing cooperation in these games

Criticisms of dilemma games
Assumes individuals are rational, motivated to maximise self-interest
Lack ecological/external validity
Are they about intergroup cooperation?

Rejection by groups
Rejection by groups has more impact than acceptance
Rejected experience drop in self-esteem

Group decision-making
Brainstorming
Group polarisation
Groupthink

Thinking in groups
The pooling of information has many benefits for groups and for culture
Sometimes groups can be smarter than individuals, even smarter than experts
But sometimes groups can be incredibly stupid

Are groups smart?
Brainstorming: Originated in ad agencies
People generate ideas together
Interactive stimulation of creative energy
Intuitively appealing
Exciting, enjoyable
But not creative: less quality and quantity than working alone

Are groups smart?
“ Wisdom of crowds:” pooled group information is often superior to single judgments
Stock market
Betting lines on sports events
Polling

Are groups smart?
“ Wisdom of crowds” works if…
Diversity of opinion
Independent thought process and judgment (instead of pressure to conform)
Pooled information, central ‘clearinghouse’
Leaders can help OR harm this process

Symptoms of groupthink
Overestimating the group
Becoming close-minded
Pressures toward conformity
"Where all think alike, no one thinks very much." - Walter Lippmann

Factors that promote groupthink
Cohesive group
Strong, popular leader, with vision
Dissent seems disloyal & personal
“ Mindguards” & other pressures to conform, including stifling dissent
Isolation
Group has high self-regard and moral self-righteousness
 So it seems OK to disregard outside views

Are groups smart?
Two heads are better than one…
But two heads working together aren’t as good as two heads working independently

Brainstorming
Generation of ideas in a group to enhance group creativity
Does brainstorming  greater creativity?
People enjoy the process & evaluate it favorably
Output is lower than individuals working alone
Nominal groups outperform ‘real’ interactive groups.

Brainstorming
Why?
Evaluation apprehension
Social loafing
Production matching
Production blocking
Remedies
Electronic brainstorming
Heterogenous groups

How groups think
Collective wisdom of group is better than individual experts
People must act as independent members of a group and share their diverse information

Teams
Many believe teams
Make better decisions
Improve performance
People enjoy working on teams
Satisfies their need to belong
Feel confident, effective & superior

Transactive memory
Members of a small group remember different things.
Begins at learning stage where group can decide roles for learning different things.

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 .

Signs of groupthink
Pressure toward conformity
Appearance of unanimous agreement
Self-censorship
Illusion of invulnerability
Sense of moral superiority
Tendency to overestimate opponents

Factors that encourage groupthink
Fairly similar & cohesive group to start.
Strong, directive leader.
Group is isolated in some sense from others.
Group regards itself as superior.

Why aren’t committees effective?
Group harmony stifles free exchange of information
Focus on common knowledge rather than unique information that people have

What is a camel?
A horse designed by committee.

Why aren’t committees effective?
Too many cooks spoil the broth.

The wisdom of crowds
Why the many are smarter than the few &
How collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies & nations

The wisdom of crowds
Criteria which separate wise from irrational crowds:
Diversity of opinion
Independence
Decentralization
Aggregation

Failures of crowd intelligence
Too
homogenous
centralised
divided
imitative
emotional

Risky shift
Group discussion tends to lead to more risky decisions  A group becomes more willing to take greater risks than individuals (on average) e.g., “running of the bulls”.

Group polarisation
Risky Shift is now more generically discussed as “group polarisation”  t endency of group members to strengthen the initial inclination of groups and shift towards more extreme positions as a result of group discussion.
i.e., could become more risky or more conservative

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

Persuasive Arguments Theory
During discussion, people are exposed to novel arguments that support initial position
Become more convinced of initial position
BUT - group polarisation is found in studies involving perceptual judgements

Social Comparison/Value Theory
Competition between group members to represent some underlying valued position
Social comparison - strive to represent most valued (extreme) position
BUT - group polarisation occurs for ‘non-value’ judgements

Minimal Group Paradigm
Tajfel et al. (1971) - minimal group experiments
Most popular strategy was to favour the ingroup as much as possible.
Ingroup bias occurs in absence of personal gain & intergroup competition.

Intergroup Conflict
What are the minimal conditions for intergroup conflict? (A: mere categorisation)
Is competition between groups necessary (& sufficient) for intergroup conflict? (A: Interdependence & conflict of interest is not necessary for bias against outgroups).

Intergroup Contact & Superordinate Goals
May  conflict &  cooperation
Sherif’s studies - needed superordinate goals in addition to contact to produce cooperation
Superordinate goals only work if goal is achieved
Failure may worsen intergroup relations - attributed to outgroup
Recategorisation (Common Ingroup Identity Model)

Self-Categorisation Theory
Prototype
position that defines what group has in common compared to outgroups
Ingroup members conform to prototype or ingroup norm
Tends to be polarised in intergroup contexts

Intergroup conflict
Sherif’s summer camp studies (Sherif, 1956)
Studies had 4 phases:
1. Boys arrive at camp, formed friendships
2. Split into 2 groups that cut across friendship lines, groups isolated

Intergroup conflict
3. 2 groups brought together to engage in intergroup competition
4. Introduced superordinate goals   d intergroup conflict.

Sherif studies: Important points
Some ethnocentrism present before competition
Boys did not have authoritarian personalities
Ingroups formed even though friends were outgroup members
Mere contact was insufficient to improve intergroup relations

Realistic Conflict Theory
Mutually exclusive goals  intergroup conflict & ethnocentrism
Shared goals requiring intergroup interdependence for achievement  conflict, promote cooperation
Conflict will not occur when there is no personal gain for individuals in groups

Conclusions
Groups influence the behaviour of individuals.
Group decisions tend to be different to individual decisions (but not necessarily worse)
Conflict between groups – realistic conflict theory vs. social identity theory.

Conclusions
Submerging the individual in the group often leads to “bad” outcomes
Role differentiation & division of labour make human groups effective

Overview: Pt 1 (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

Overview: Pt 2 (Leadership)
Power and Leadership

Leadership questions
What is leadership?
What is followership?
What are the characteristics of successful leaders?
Do leaders show distinctive patterns of behavior?
What leadership styles are there?

Leadership questions
How does leaders’ behavior vary with the situation?
What sources of power and influence are used by leaders?
What are the effects of different types of leadership?
Can we do without leadership?
How can leadership skills be developed?

Social psychology of leadership
Leadership is…
A relationship
A group phenomenon
A form of social influence

Process of getting the cooperation of others in accomplishing a desired goal.
Ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals.
What is leadership ?

“ You know what makes leadership? It is the ability to get men to do what they don't want to do and like it.”
34 th president of the United States of America
“ 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)

What is a follower?
A follower is an individual who pursues the ideas, goals, or tasks of a leader.
Followers can be developed by working together to identify goals and strategies for achieving the goals.

Follower characteristics
Identification with the leader and the vision
Heightened emotional levels
Willing subordination to the leader
Feelings of empowerment

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

Evolution of Leadership Theory

Modern thought on leadership
Post-WWI brought the demise of “hereditary leadership”  First theories on personal qualities or traits
Post-WWII, shift to observable behaviours
1960’s - Situational leadership
Recently - Transactional to transformational leadership

Traditional leadership theories
Dispositional/trait theories
Leadership is personality traits
Certain attributes make a great leade r
Behavior theories
Leadership is what someone does
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.

The Trait Approach: Great Person Theory
Leaders possess special traits that set them apart from others & that these traits are responsible for their assuming positions of power & authority.

Trait theories
Theories that consider personality, social, physical, or intellectual traits to differentiate leaders from followers, e.g.,:
Drive, ambition, & energy
Desire to lead
Honesty & integrity
Self-confidence
Intelligence
Job-relevant knowledge & technical expertise

Leadership Traits
Traits of successful leaders
Humble and modest
Extreme persistence
Traits of people perceived as good leaders
Decisive
Competent at group tasks
Possess integrity
Honest and good moral character
Have vision

Negative leadership traits that prevent individuals from being leaders
Uninformed
Non-participative
Rigid
Authoritarian
Offensive

Criticisms – Trait Theories
No universal traits predict leadership in all situations
Unclear evidence of the cause and effect of relationship of leadership and traits. (Which comes first, trait or leadership position?)
Traits predict behavior better in “weak” than “strong” situations.

Criticisms – Trait theories
Provides little advice or training to give current or soon-to-be leaders
Better predictor of the appearance of leadership than distinguishing effective and ineffective leaders.
Overlooks needs of followers
Fails to clarify trait's relative importance.

Leadership roles
Early studies identified 3 different styles:
Autocratic
Democratic
Laissez-faire

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.

Contingency Leadership Theory
Effective leadership behavior depends on the situation at hand
G iven the right context, every leadership theory or model is the correct one.
There is no one best style of leadership
Leadership style must match the situation

Task- vs People-Oriented Leadership
Task-Oriented
task is uppermost;
employee needs close supervision;
supervisor upset when tasks not accomplished;
human aspect neglected;
regular checks on work progress;
perceived as “tough”;
People-Oriented
concern for subordinates’ needs;
climate building;
inquiries about problems;
can be counterproductive if “overdone”.

The Continuum of Leadership Behavior (Tannenbaum, 1974) AUTOCRAT DEMOCRAT PUSH Tells Sells [Tests] Consults Joins PULL Boss Employee

Task vs. relationship
Task-oriented Leadership
Best under situations of high or low control
Relationship-oriented Leadership
Best under situations of
moderate control

Reasons for a more participative or democratic style:
Information or expertise exists among subordinates
Greater understanding, acceptance and support of decision by subordinates
Autocractic or Democratic?

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.
Therefore, adopt a leadership style that is appropriate to the situation to maximise performance & job satisfaction.

Path-Goal Leadership Styles
Directive
Informs subordinates of expectations, gives guidance, shows how to do tasks
Supportive
Friendly and approachable, shows concern for status, well-being and needs of subordinates

Path-Goal Leadership Styles
Participative
Consults with subordinates, solicits suggestions, takes suggestions into consideration
Achievement oriented
Sets challenging goals, expects subordinates to perform at highest level, continuously seeks improvement in performance, has confidence in highest motivations of employees

Path-Goal Guidelines to Be Effective Leader
Determine the outcomes subordinates want
Reward individuals with their desired outcomes when they perform well
Be clear with expectations

Transactional & Transformational Leadership As a transactional leader, I use formal rewards & punishments. As a transformational leader, I inspire and excite followers to high levels of performance.

McGregor’s Theory X & Theory Y
2 assumptions about human nature:
Theory X
Workers are passive and lazy, prefer to be led, and resist change
Theory Y
Management’s task is to ensure that workers' important needs are met
Either theory can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Servant Leadership
Servant Leaders focus on providing  d service to others—meeting the goals of both the followers and the organisation—rather than themselves

Benefits of Leading Without Authority
Latitude for creative deviance
Easier to raise questions
Issue focus
Freedom to focus on single issue, rather than many issues
Frontline information
Often closer to the people who have the information

Substitutes for leadership
In some situations, the leader may not be necessary. Other factors may substitute for or neutralise leader’s influence, e.g.,:
Workers who are experienced or trained
Jobs that are unambiguous or satisfying
Workgroups that are cohesive
Goals that are formalised
Rules that are rigid

What is power?
Ability to get someone to do something you want done.
Capacity to make things happen in the way you want.
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.

Effects of power on leaders
Feel good
Are reward-oriented
Changes relationships between people
Rely more on automatic processing
Removes inhibitions against taking action

Effects of power on followers
Followers pay extra attention to the powerful person & try to understand him/her
People with less power will be prone to fostering peace & harmony
People low in power adapt to the expectations of high-power people

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

Bad bosses: Four types
Promoted above ability (Peter Principle)
Fails to build a good team (poor hiring choices)
Poor interpersonal skills (arrogant, etc.) leading to conflicts
Undermines the group (e.g., betrays trust)

Dangerous leaders
“ Emotional disregard and disconnection from others” (Mayer, 1993)
Indifference toward people’s suffering, devaluation of people generally
Intolerant of criticism (e.g., suppressing dissent)
Grandiose sense of national entitlement

Summary & conclusions
Leadership plays a central part in understanding group behavior.
A lot of research has illustrated the complexity of leadership.
Leadership as person, role, & situation.
Literature provides some support for the role of individual differences
Appear to be key skill and traits for associated with effective leadership

Leader as an active, flexible pursuer of vision who influences others towards achievement of vision.
No one style of leadership is always the preferred leadership style.
Leadership is not value- & culture-bound.
Leadership may not be necessary given the right conditions.

Humans gradually developed means of transferring power without violence
Restricting power is one great achievement of human culture

References
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

http://psy-alahmar.blogspot.com	3307
http://ucspace.canberra.edu.au	167
http://www.slideshare.net	62
http://psy-alahmar.blogspot.co.il	22
http://7125-6666.blogspot.com	16
http://manthanppt.blogspot.com	6
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com	5
http://psy-alahmar.blogspot.co.uk	4
http://psy-alahmar.blogspot.ca	4
http://www.brijj.com	4
http://psy-alahmar.blogspot.ae	4
http://psy-alahmar.blogspot.se	3
http://psy-alahmar.blogspot.com.au	3
http://www.techgig.com	3
http://translate.googleusercontent.com	3
http://psy-alahmar.blogspot.in	2
http://us.mg3.mail.yahoo.com	2
http://bb91.se.edu	2
https://online.fvtc.edu	2
https://twitter.com	2
http://psy-alahmar.blogspot.com.es	1
http://131.253.14.66	1
http://psy-alahmar.blogspot.de	1
http://uapb.blackboard.com	1
http://translate.googleuser	1
http://72.30.186.176	1
http://www.lmodules.com	1
http://psy-alahmar.blogspot.it	1
http://vle.citybathcoll.ac.uk	1
http://manthanppt.blogspot.in	1
http://www.bing.com	1
http://www.psy-alahmar.blogspot.com	1
https://bb.uhd.edu	1
http://sf.blackboard.com	1
https://ccsnh.blackboard.com	1
http://10.160.11.253	1
http://www.e-presentations.us	1
http://translate.googleusercon	1
http://learn.palomar.edu	1
http://translat	1

Groups & Leadership

by James Neill

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

40 Embeds 3,643

Statistics

Groups & Leadership Presentation Transcript