6Group CohesivenessLearning ObjectivesWhat We Will.docx

6
Group Cohesiveness
Learning Objectives
What We Will Be Investigating
•
Whataresomeofthewaysmembersofgroupsidentifywitheachother?
• Whathelpsfostertheeffectivenessofteams?
• Whataresomeoftheobstaclestogroupsworkingwelltogether?
•
Whatspecificdifferencesaretherebetweenameregroupandagenuine
team?
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 111 9/1/11 9:51 AM
CHAPTER 6Introduction
Chapter Outline
“Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together
is progress. Working together is success.”
—Henry Ford
Before we begin to examine causes and consequences of group
cohesion, let’s consider the
following questions:

• What has been your most stellar group experience?
• What were the qualities or events that made it such a good
experience?
• What has been a negative group experience you’ve had?
• What were the qualities or events that made it a negative
experience?
• Was there anything that could have been done to improve that
experience?
It’s very likely that the quality of the interpersonal relations
that you had with other mem-
bers, the attraction you had to the group itself, or the efforts
made by the larger organiza-
tion to make the group attractive to you played important roles
in your overall assessment
of your group experience.
Cohesion has probably been studied more than any other feature
of group dynamics.
Recall from Chapter 5 that group cohesion is defined as the
degree to which a group exists
or operates as a unified entity. This definition can refer to
attraction to the other group
members and to the larger collectivity itself. In this chapter, we
examine the many causes
of group cohesiveness as well as several outcomes of belonging
to a cohesive group. We
start by looking at togetherness and the three primary factors
associated with it. Then the
focus turns to the dynamics of teams. The chapter concludes
with a closer look at the pros,
as well as the cons, of cohesion.
6.1 Togetherness
Interpersonal Factors
Structural Factors

Organizational Factors
6.2 Teams
Ways to Foster Team Cohesion
Detriments to Team Cohesion
6.3 CohesionOutcomes:“TheGoodStuff”
Autonomy
Representation
Enforcement
6.4 CohesionOutcomes:“TheBadStuff”
Pluralistic Ignorance
Scapegoating and Aggression
Self-Censorship
Groupthink
Cohesion and Productivity: Another Look
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 112 9/1/11 9:51 AM
CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Togetherness
6.1 Togetherness
There are positive and negative examples of togetherness. First
we’ll discuss negative
examples to help illustrate that togetherness can occur in all
types of group contexts—
good, bad, and traumatic. During World War II, the German
army, or Wehrmacht, was
famous for its national and internal loyalty. Even when
outnumbered and outarmed by
Allied Forces, ill fed and in rags, German soldier brigades often
literally fought to the last
man without surrender. Japanese pilots in World War II

deliberately crashed their planes
into enemy targets, committing suicide in the process (Janowitz,
1948). More recently,
followers of the Reverend Jim Jones first trailed their leader to
Guyana, and then com-
mitted mass suicide at his apparent request. Several years later,
Heaven’s Gate commune
members committed mass suicide in California, apparently
believing that space aliens
would whisk them away in the process. Even more recently,
suicide bombers have killed
thousands of people (including, obviously enough, themselves).
Worldwide, there are
hundreds, maybe even thousands, of young persons who are
apparently willing to die for
their cause, including jihad. Such willingness to sacrifice
everything, including one’s life,
for the larger collectivity demands our attention.
But what builds and nourishes this kind of loyalty? Many would
argue that members of
highly cohesive groups are more willing to sacrifice for the sake
of the collectivity, even
if it means their lives. Thus, this chapter combines the earlier
material on attraction to
groups with research on cohesiveness to examine several of the
determinants and out-
comes of group cohesion.
There’s a special something about a group that functions well
together. Yet you may recall
that attempts to define cohesion frequently break down into
either vague or overly restric-
tive terms. Part of the problem is failing to consider the many
dimensions of group cohe-
sion. What makes up the group is a significant factor in how

that group does its work.
Indeed, the very transition from a mere group to a genuine team
can often be the result of
the characteristics of those who make up the group. At the same
time, the goals of a group,
and its success in meeting those goals, provides another way of
evaluating its performance
and effectiveness. And these
are just two important fac-
tors to consider in evaluating
how well a group performs
its functions. A unified sports
team is not a neighborhood
after-school friendship group.
Different bases for group
cohesion depend on the type
of group and on the resources
that the group and members
can offer one another. Simi-
larly, the dimension of cohe-
sion that may work well for
one type of task (providing
emotional support in a drug
recovery group) may work
Working together as a unified team is often the cornerstone of
success in business, academics, sports, and indeed any context.
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 113 9/1/11 9:51 AM
poorly in another (assembling a car in a garage). This chapter

will start by explaining the
three main factors of togetherness: interpersonal, structural, and
organizational.
InterpersonalFactors
There are several possible sources of group cohesion. Some
sources are more interper-
sonal, while others are structural in nature. Of course, more
than one source can operate
simultaneously for a particular group.
Interpersonal sources of group cohesion depend on the
characteristics of individual
members. The group is cohesive because members like and are
attracted to one another.
Some major sources include member similarity and member
attractiveness.
Member similarity, which is probably the number one factor in
interpersonal attraction
(Chapter 5), includes demographic factors, such as age and
gender; similarity in attitudes,
such as values and beliefs; and situational similarity, such as
travelers in a foreign country
or employees in danger of being laid off or fired.
Member attractiveness is an interpersonal resource that can
induce group cohesion. It is
very often characteristic of an informal group because informal
groups frequently have
ManagementConnections
DiversityandCohesion
Most research studies, especially laboratory experiments that

examine the influence of member characteristics
on interpersonal ties, use groups of strangers. Other “members”
of these experimental groups can immediately
know information about these individuals only from superficial
observation or because the experimenters provide
selected, often bogus information about them.
(See McGrath, 1984.)
How do you think the results might differ if we
studied intact groups instead? Might an oral his-
tory of the group or a longitudinal, natural setting
design such as Newcomb’s scholarship house for
students (Chapter 4) yield different data?
Consider a small company of 30 or so employees:
25 are male, five are female. Two of the women are
Latinas, two of the males are African American, and
the rest are White. A new manager is employed,
who is a Chinese American female. What charac-
teristics might the new manager have that provides
some common ground with the other employ-
ees? What characteristics might be seen by some
employees as obstacles to the group’s cohesion?
What kind of strategies might the owner of the
company develop to help the new manager feel
part of the group, and as adding to group cohesion,
rather than subtracting from it?
Diversity adds tremendous value in terms of
achieving a company’s goals. But bringing
diverse backgrounds and perspectives together
in a cohesive, focused way also can create chal-
lenges for those in leadership positions.
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 114 9/1/11 9:51 AM

more limited structural resources that they can use to recruit
appealing members. Interper-
sonal attraction can come from various sources. The prestige or
social class of individual
members (irrespective of the status of the group itself), member
physical attractiveness,
and supportive warm personalities of members can all be
attractive forces.
StructuralFactors
A large company can only do so much about the personal
characteristics of the people
who work there and the effects those characteristics may have
within the company. How-
ever, large companies do typically have control over all kinds of
structural properties,
from salary schedules to attractive physical décor. For example,
someone may wish to
work at IBM because it produces a well-known product and has
a good reputation for
treating its employees well, irrespective of what the other
workers may be like. Structural
sources of cohesion refer to properties in the group’s physical
or social environment or
regular, systematic rewards that a group can offer to its
members. Structural sources of
cohesion center more around attraction to the group itself or
aspects related to group tasks
than they do around the positive characteristics of individual
members as is the case with
interpersonal sources of cohesion. Structural cohesion thus is

usually more apparent in
formal than in informal groups.
Propinquity
One very basic structural element of cohesion is propinquity, or
spatial proximity to oth-
ers. This can be an important structural property because people
interact more with indi-
viduals who are next to them, regardless of how they feel
towards those individuals. By
seeing the same people in the elevator every day, standing in
line in the cafeteria with the
same individuals, or always being seated next to the same
person in a training workshop,
those persons become familiar to us. Other things equal, Zajonc
(2000) found that we like
familiar objects, even familiar nonsense syllables, better than
unfamiliar ones. There is,
presumably, sufficient stress within a workplace already, due to
deadlines, production
schedules, meetings, and other work-related obligations.
Familiarity can help with this
BusinessintheRealWorld
FosteringTeamwork
Consider a job you have had, or a job you currently have. How
many of the people with whom you work do you
know well? Do you know the names of their spouses and
children? Do you know what they do for fun, or where
they went on vacation? Have you ever been to their house, or
they to yours? Have you gone out with them after
work? On the weekend?
Are there people you see every day at work you don’t have any
interaction with other than to say hello? What, if

anything, characterizes generally those you do know well?
What, if anything, characterizes generally those you do
not know well?
What kinds of things might you do to increase your interaction
with fellow workers, particularly with those you do
not know very well? Is such interaction an important goal? How
can it improve your work environment? How can
it improve the other person’s work environment? How can it
help improve the effectiveness of the company for
which you work?
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 115 9/1/11 9:51 AM
stress. Simply put, we are more comfortable with those things
we are more used to. In
time, we may come to enjoy the unfamiliar thing—we may even
enjoy it a great deal more
than the familiar—but given the alternatives of the familiar and
the unfamiliar, most of us
gravitate toward that to which we are accustomed.
Emotional and Physical Arousal
Group leaders generally have more potential power to influence
structural sources of
cohesion than they do interpersonal sources. Leaders can
generate creative and appeal-
ing group tasks or engender a group enemy. They may have a
budget to improve the
group’s immediate physical surroundings. The group may have
rewards, such as a raise
or promotion, that it can distribute to loyal members. Structural

sources of cohesion may
emphasize collective or group identity. Some possible bases that
can help create structural
cohesion are to follow. Businesses may be able to unobtrusively
manipulate several of
these bases to facilitate team spirit.
Various forms of arousal can generate group cohesiveness.
Emotional arousal and
its physiological components, such as heightened heart rate or
blood pressure, tend to
strengthen affiliative needs. On a structural level, group
symbols, spirited music, or even
bright colors may increase emotional arousal among members.
A company may expect
its employees to wear a uniform, or at least a badge, identifying
them as members of
the company. Some American companies, following a practice
more traditional in Japan,
start the workday with a set of exercises, done as a group. These
are examples of the
kind of thing companies can do to provide a positive emotional
aspect for employees. On
the other hand, a frightening experience, including a scary
movie or a potential takeover
by another company, can provide a negative emotional arousal
that is also conducive to
group unity. A common enemy can increase emotional arousal
too, and sometimes group
leaders can use this basis as a way to foster greater group
cohesion. As noted in an article
profiling Jim Sinegal, chief executive of Costco, on Costco’s
chief competitor Wal-Mart:
“There is little love lost between Wal-Mart and Costco. Wal-
Mart, for example, boasts that
its Sam’s Club division has the lowest prices of any retailer.

Mr. Sinegal emphatically dis-
missed that assertion with a one-word barnyard epithet”
(Greenhouse, 2005, para. 28). No
doubt Sinegal’s attitude is well-known to, and quite possibly
shared by, his employees.
On the other hand, slight overcrowding, which, among other
things raises temperature,
can increase physical arousal. An extreme example of this might
be found among the first
responders to the 9/11 terrorist attack. In extremely dangerous
conditions, people who
were, in many cases, total strangers worked effectively together.
The physical closeness and
the shared danger certainly contributed to their cohesiveness. In
less dire circumstances,
however, managers need to be mindful of not creating such a
condition among employees
so as not to inadvertently strain cohesion; striking the balance
between employees feeling
too crowded and feeling too isolated presents a challenge to an
effective manager.
Goals
Common group goals are another way to increase structural
cohesion in a group. Com-
mon goals typically occur when official group goals coincide
with goals that most of the
membership holds. For example, a class wants to win the joint
science fair project or a
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 116 9/1/11 9:51 AM

sales team wants to set a new district record. Achieving group
goals generates a sense of
accomplishment. All else equal, people are more satisfied with
membership in successful
than in unsuccessful groups (Seta & Seta, 1996). If group goals
are also very attractive to
aspiring members, a group may use its goal achievements to
appeal to new recruits.
In Chapter 10, we’ll learn more about the camp experiences that
Muzafer Sherif and his
colleagues (Sherif et al., 1988) created that brought two teams
of boys to continuing con-
flict as sworn enemies. In Sherif’s studies, only the engineered
construction of goals that
required the groups to cooperate with each other in order to
repair the camp truck or fix
the camp water tower got the two groups talking and working
together.
Group goals may include defeating a common enemy, or a
common enemy may arise after
individuals have been members for some time. Neighborhood
youth gangs and college or
business rivalries remind us that enemies can occur (or can be
created) in both formal and
informal groups. Research (Castano & Serone, 2002) shows that
the presence of a group
enemy strengthens in-group identification and makes that
collective identity more salient
to members. The increased arousal in the group motivate them
to more goal-oriented
behavior.
You are probably familiar with companies identifying their

main competition as such an
enemy; indeed, some companies (consider Coca-Cola and Pepsi,
Verizon and AT&T, or
Direct TV and Dish Network) make that identification as part of
their marketing cam-
paign. If a company advertises that its product is superior to a
competing product, it is
safe to assume that this claim functions to organize and unify
employees to help “defeat”
their common enemy.
For the last 10 years, at different times Democrats and
Republicans in the House of Repre-
sentatives and in the Senate have shared the common goal of
capturing Osama bin Laden.
Often the members of the two political parties are at odds with
one another and have
very different goals. Capturing Osama bin Laden was a unifying
goal. In 2011, a U.S.
special forces military unit captured Osama bin Laden. Both
Republicans and Democrats
in Congress and in the rest
of the United States had
positive feelings about the
accomplishment.
Interdependent goals in
particular can join a group
together. When group goals
are interdependent, this typi-
cally implies a specialized
division of labor. Each mem-
ber must be able to perform
his or her unique assigned
task in the correct sequence

in order for the group to
complete its assignment. For
example, when he was on the
faculty of University of Texas,
A common enemy can increase emotional arousal. Group
leaders can use this arousal to foster greater group cohesion.
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 117 9/1/11 9:51 AM
Eliot Aronson (with Patnoe, 1997) created the “jigsaw puzzle
classroom” in order to ensure
that all public school students, regardless of ethnicity, gender,
or ability level, were included
in classroom problem solving. Each student had to share his or
her unique information in
order for the class to complete the task.
Shared Identity
A group is also in a position to emphasize a shared identity.
Shared identity has an influ-
ence on behavior and individual identity. For example, college
students who identified
highly with their university and read a statement evaluating
their university badly in
comparison to a rival university showed a decrease in self-
esteem and an increase in
favoritism toward their university. A bias toward their own
university related to a later
rise in self-esteem (Smurda, Wittig, & Gokalp, 2006). Avis, the
second largest car-rental
company at the time, used its threatened identity as a sales tool.

Avis used the slogan “We
Try Harder,” suggesting that employees had to work together to
challenge leader Hertz.
Groups that emphasize group cohesion often have resources to
offer to members such as
incentives to keep them in the group and to attract new potential
associates. These struc-
tural incentives can include
• Prestige or social status.
• Material resources, including money.
• Knowledge and skill. The specialized skills that members can
offer one another.
• Historical appeal. The college with attractive old buildings
and a reputation in
folklore and the legendary company whose brand is immediately
and positively
recognizable, such as Coca-Cola, are prominent examples of
historic appeal. The
recognition factor alone can mean these entities have an easier
time attracting stu-
dents or employees.
• Opportunity. The group may give the individual the chance to
share, develop, or
demonstrate a special skill. Perhaps the company provides
unique training oppor-
tunities or a showcase for the member’s achievements.
• Food/comfort. As a short-term measure, serving food can
promote group cohesion.
Members generally are more satisfied when they are fed.
• Security. Financial and sometimes emotional security often

provides a comfort
zone that promotes group cohesion.
OrganizationalFactors
Finally, organizational factors affect cohesion. A group may be
part of a larger formal
organization or it may exist as an entire formal organization on
its own. Although an indi-
vidual’s feelings about group members in general may be
neutral or even hostile rather
than positive, the formal organization in which the group is
embedded can be very attrac-
tive. This continues to focus our attention on what the group
itself (rather than individual
members) can offer as opposed to interpersonal attraction. As
you recall from Chapter 3,
because of their history, formal organizations frequently can
offer members resources of
various kinds that a more informal group cannot.
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 118 9/1/11 9:51 AM
Many people join an organization because it has high status or
prestige. As noted above,
certain companies may have cachet because they produce or sell
high-status merchandise,
such as Neiman Marcus or Saks Fifth Avenue. The members of
a particular social club
may be highly educated or hold prestigious jobs. In addition to
status or prestige, a group
may appear to have sufficient power in its environment that

joining it suggests that the
group will help advance individual goals. For example, the
Harvard graduate is confident
she will find a good job; the Microsoft executive feels secure
that he will be approved for a
home mortgage. Organizations that have considerable resources
often may be persuaded
to share some of these with new recruits.
The display of tradition and pageantry that an organization can
support frequently attract
members. School songs, fraternity symbols, or time-honored
religious liturgy are exam-
ples of symbols that can contribute to a sense of collective
identity, make a group more
attractive to potential members, and thereby instill pride in
current members. Likewise,
a company’s headquarters in a thriving downtown metropolis or
office space on the top
floors of a beautiful building may serve as a sign of its power
and prestige and therefore
serve as an attraction to employees. People enjoy the prestige of
being associated with
a successful company; this feature, naturally, helps attract good
employees. A well-run
and highly regarded organization thus generates something of a
feedback mechanism: A
high-quality organization attracts high-quality employees, who
contribute to the kind of
success that will allow the organization to continue to attract
that kind of employee.
A large formal organization will also create and maintain
smaller groups within it, prefer-
ably subgroups composed of individuals who share a variety of
commonalities. Recall that

people are more satisfied with their membership in smaller than
in larger groups. Then,
this astute company will directly tie these smaller groups to the
larger organization to cre-
ate a network of interlocking loyalties. Thus, the individual
becomes not only committed
to the immediate subgroup in
which he or she is located, but
comes to feel a kinship with
the larger school, the com-
pany, or the neighborhood
(see also Lawler, 2008).
For example, research con-
ducted on religious congre-
gations (Losh, 1992) found
that socioemotional support
groups formed there gathered
together people who were
initially strangers but who
had common interests. For
example, they were all young
mothers or they were all inter-
ested in Bible study. In this
way, the congregation created
new social ties among parish-
ioners, which fostered the
The location of an organization can serve as a powerful
force in attracting workers. The allure of being located in a
major city, for example, may be one of a company’s biggest
recruiting tools.
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 119 9/1/11 9:52 AM

overall cohesion of the entire congregation. In contrast,
congregations that were character-
ized by high levels of informal verbal interaction tended to form
cliques. Clique members
continually reinforced their relations with one another but did
not tend to reach out to new
members and did not create ties with other congregational
subgroups.
The degree to which organizational cohesion was found to
contribute to a congregation’s
moving toward its goal was impressive. Congregations with
greater numbers of sup-
port groups also created more ties with other congregations,
regardless of denomination.
Groups enmeshed in a network with other churches and
synagogues engaged more often
in organized social and political action, such as establishing a
homeless shelter, an organi-
zation that provided emergency health care, or a series of
interfaith celebration services.
In contrast, high levels of social interaction were unrelated to
congregational insularity or
to any kind of organized social and political action. It is as if
the skills used to build and
maintain support groups—or the skills learned through
participation in such groups—
generalize to other types of organization-building skills, making
these congregations
more effective.
Many start-up businesses also feature this kind of skill
development. A company that

starts with just a few, very committed people requires long
hours, a fair amount of risk,
and sacrificing time spent with family and friends. As new
employees are introduced
into the organization, they need to develop the kind of skills
that allow them to become
integrated into this sort of work environment. At the same time,
the original employees
(often the owners) of the company cannot rely on their intimate
interpersonal understand-
ing of each other that was there at the start of the company.
Consequently, new interper-
sonal skills are demanded from both those who helped start the
company and from those
needed to help the company develop and grow. A well-known
example of this kind of
situation is Apple Inc.; Microsoft is another celebrated example.
In organizations it is possible to establish a state of cohesion in
departments, work pods,
or throughout the company. The first place that cohesion can
begin is in training. Often
employers train new employees in groups. Goals are set for
training. The goals are dis-
cussed with the trainees. The trainees discuss the goals with one
another and check on
each other’s progress toward achieving the goals.
More cohesion can be obtained as the company grows and
groups of employees estab-
lish longevity and have more shared experiences. Thus time
together, shared experiences,
shared meanings from shared experiences, and propinquity, or
spatial proximity to other
employees, can combine to create a very strong state of
cohesion. This can be true not only

for employees but also for the families of those employees.
Family members attend com-
pany parties, picnics, and celebrations and, over time, form
bonds.
In the popular cable television show Army Wives, the wives and
husbands of military
members share pregnancies, childrearing, schooling, victories,
homecomings, and losses.
These common experiences help them to experience cohesion
much like what their
spouses experience within their military units. There are, of
course, a number of such
situations, where common challenges, similar problems, and
various other shared experi-
ences generate this kind of cohesion among a group of people
who might otherwise not
recognize that they even form a coherent group.
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 120 9/1/11 9:52 AM
CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Teams
6.2 Teams
What are some of the factors that distinguish a team from a
group? What fosters team
unity? What is detrimental to team unity? This section looks
closer at each dynamic.
It is important to recognize that there are significant differences
between groups and
teams. All teams are groups, but not all groups are teams. An
effective manager will need
to develop effective procedures to make her groups and

subgroups of employees become
teams. As standardly understood, a group is a relatively small
number of people who
have various skills—ideally skills that complement each other—
and are committed to a
set of goals specified by an identified leader (such as the boss).
A team is also a relatively
small group of people, but one whose complementary skills are
geared toward a common
goal, and whose members hold each other accountable for
helping reach that goal. The
following table helps bring out the difference here:
Table6.1:Comparinggroupsandteams
Group Team
Small group of people Small group of people
Possesses complementary skills and abilities Possesses
complementary skills and abilities
Committed to leader’s goal Committed to a common goal
Held accountable to leader Hold each other accountable
Leadership held by one person Shared leadership
Single viewpoint dominates Diverse viewpoints shared
This is not to say that teams are better than groups (or that
groups are better than teams).
It depends on what the collection of people seeks to accomplish.
Are shared responsibility
and hearing a multiplicity of views important goals? If so, the
team concept seems to be
the better approach. On the other hand, if the goal is to

accomplish a specific task that has
already been established, and the responsibility clearly falls on
just one person, the group
may be more appropriate. How people work together, and the
structure of that work, is
often a function of what that group needs to accomplish and
what the best way to accom-
plish it is.
WaystoFosterTeamCohesion
Very often, a team shares a mental model of the team goals and
the steps that are needed
to accomplish them (e.g. Hu & Liden, 2011; Mehta, 2009). This
shared vision provides a
roadmap and a set of directions that team members endorse and
it can help boost team
productivity.
One way in which a successful team can differ from a group in
general is in the collective
behaviors that members must master and display in order for the
team to operate effec-
tively. On-site team member training with the intact group is
typically the most effective.
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 121 9/1/11 9:52 AM
CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Teams
Although challenge activities, such as Outward Bound activities
or whitewater rafting,
may seem intuitively useful and can be fun for participants,
such planned activities typi-

cally do not increase team productivity (Jones & Oswick, 2007).
As part of training in team
skills, it is more important for members to learn to discard “bad
habits” that may have
carried over from earlier group experiences than to share
exciting adventures.
One of the advantages of the team concept—in contrast to the
group concept—is that
members of the team take responsibility for problems that arise:
Rather than reporting
some type of problem of conflict to a superior, team members
will address those involved
in the conflict directly, and attempt to resolve it within the team
structure.
DetrimentstoTeamCohesion
Highly competitive behaviors internal to the group can destroy
team unity. Consider two
very competitive agents working for a large real estate firm. In
aggressively pursuing
sales against each other, they may end up doing damage to the
firm and its reputation.
Furthermore, the temptation to violate moral and even legal
principles becomes greater
within such a competitive environment. And finally, this kind of
competitiveness can harm
morale in the work place, making it ultimately a less productive
environment. A manager,
of course, does not want employees to lose their aggressiveness,
but needs to understand
how to channel it appropriately, to generate a more cohesive
and, consequently, effec-
tive workplace. When members of a group begin to recognize
that all of its members do

better when they work together—and when man-
agers identify ways of helping employees make
that recognition—the group starts functioning
as a team. Such a team can lead to greater results
precisely by developing cooperation rather than
competition.
Social loafing, in which some members contrib-
ute little but take at least their share of collective
rewards, can damage team motivation. If some
employees come in late, take a longer lunch break,
and leave earlier than others, but still expect to be
paid the same, this attitude may infect the others
as well. Group moral can plummet and produc-
tivity will drop along with it.
A judgmental, intolerant atmosphere or members
who are difficult to work with can also impede
team functioning. An environment that makes
some members feel uncomfortable prevents them
from fully participating in the group; if their skills
are necessary for the group, this lessens the abil-
ity of the group to function as well as it can. Most
teams work better when mutual respect is shown
among all the team members, and when that
respect is lacking, the work environment suffers.
Social loafers can damage group
morale and thereby diminish group
productivity.
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 122 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Good Stuff”
In terms of structural components, a system that rewards
individual standouts or “stars”
can undermine team spirit and makes members less likely to
want to cooperate. For exam-
ple, giving a raise to the top salesperson in a computer
components division, but neglect-
ing to reward the office and support staff that made that star
performance possible, will
make many team members angry and less likely to provide
stellar support in the future.
Without staunch background support, the star may no longer
appear so outstanding.
Teams tell us a lot about how a group of people can come
together in a cohesive and pro-
ductive way (although, of course, there are no guarantees here).
For example, are team
goals compatible with those of the larger group? If so, cohesive
teams can top the list on
productivity. If team goals are opposed to those of the larger
organization—for example,
if team members believe their company does not treat them
equitably—they may empha-
size social relations over task completion. In such cases
cohesive teams can be the least
productive of all.
6.3 CohesionOutcomes:“TheGoodStuff”
Because companies believe that group cohesion creates a more
congenial and productive
workforce, many encourage positive social relations among
their employees. They may
hold group picnics or holiday parties with the hope of creating
team spirit. Moreover, larger

divisions within a company often splinter into smaller, friendly
subgroups, frequently
along the lines of geographic layout, such as building floors or
wings, or disciplinary simi-
larities, such as subgroups of engineers or marketers. Social
relations among these disci-
pline or geographic subgroups are commonly very cordial too.
As long as norms in these
larger and smaller groups solidly align with the norms of the
larger company, attempts
to foster social togetherness are worthwhile because in such
cases, cohesive teams will
out-produce less cohesive collectivities. On balance, recent
analyses using a statistically
sophisticated technique called meta analysis, in which the
results from several indepen-
dent studies are analyzed together, do suggest that in general
cohesive groups are more
productive than the average group (Evans & Dion, 1991). There
are several reasons why
this may be so.
There are many possible positive outcomes of high group
cohesion. For example, group
members definitely have higher satisfaction in cohesive groups
(Dobbins & Zaccaro,
1986). Members choose to remain in cohesive groups longer
than in less cohesive groups
when a choice is available (Dobbins & Zaccaro, 1986). This is
important news for compa-
nies that wish to lower expensive turnover or for school
districts that want to minimize
teacher attrition.
Members of cohesive groups less often report feeling lonely or
isolated (Toseland & Rivas,

2005). Cohesive groups appear to provide a buffer against stress
and thus may improve
individual mental and physical health. Collective identity is
stronger in more cohesive
groups than in less cohesive groups too (Dobbins & Zaccaro,
1986; Toseland & Rivas,
2005). It is unclear which dimensions of cohesion—
interpersonal, structural, or organiza-
tional—are responsible for many of these positive outcomes.
The increases in feelings of
security and attachment among members suggest that the
dimension of interpersonal ties
plays an important role here.
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 123 9/1/11 9:52 AM
CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Good Stuff”
If a group is cohesive and its norms align with the larger
organization, that group tends to be
productive. The critical question is: How can companies achieve
this winning combination?
Autonomy
Research on influence and persuasion (Cialdini, 1998) indicates
that if groups are allowed
some choice in setting their own goals, their commitment to the
organization is higher
than if decisions are made top-down about group tasks.
Providing input also raises a
group’s commitment to the larger collectivity. When Marathon
Oil rebranded, for
instance, employees were consulted about the new logo’s

appearance and what it stood
for. This engages these employees in such a way that they have
a stake in that brand and,
of course, its success. Marathon not only demonstrated that it
cared what its workers
thought, it recognized that the perspective of those workers was
a resource of consider-
able value.
Representation
Including representatives of groups in decision making for the
entire organization also
builds commitment. It is important to note that group
representation and input must
be genuine, and more than simply token. Group representatives
must be taken seri-
ously by upper management and must exercise at least some
control over decisions
for this kind of participation to work. For instance, upper
management may ask its
employees for suggestions about how to save energy in its
various operations. Tak-
ing those suggestions seriously, and implementing those that are
genuinely valuable,
shows employees that they are taken seriously (as well as saves
the company energy
costs). Ignoring those suggestions—particularly very good
ones—tells employees that
regardless of how valuable their input might be, they will not be
listened to, again lead-
ing to a more negative attitude among those employees. The
next time management
asks for input, its workers may regard the request as mere lip
service, and may well
not take it seriously.

Large companies may have many departments such as
marketing, advertising, account-
ing, shipping and receiving, manufacturing, human resources,
and strategic planning.
Upper management may decide to allow each department to
have more authority and
responsibility for creating budgets, hiring personnel, designing
workflow, and acquiring
and allocating resources. In allowing more autonomy within
these departments on an
organizational level, management might be able to foster higher
levels of cohesion and
greater outcomes.
We might take a midsize tool-making company as an example.
Subgroups in this com-
pany include those responsible for tool production, tool
improvement, research and
development of new products, shipping, accounting, and others.
Effectively organized,
each group becomes a team when it is given a large amount of
responsibility for its indi-
vidual operations. As a team, it has a stake in its efficiency and
productivity, and shares in
the rewards it receives as a result of its success. This gives each
member of the team a stake
in the product and in the both the team and the larger
organization, leading to a better
work environment and, quite possibly, a more successful
company overall.
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 124 9/1/11 9:52 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Cohesion Outcomes: “The Bad Stuff”
Enforcement
Highly cohesive groups can enforce group norms—whatever
they may be—far more effec-
tively than less cohesive groups. Individual internal pressures to
conform are greater in very
cohesive groups (Reilly, 2001). Because people value their
membership in these groups, they
are willing to adjust their behaviors to group standards. Even if
there is initial “storming”
and conflict (Tuckman, 1965), if the group “gels,” a “norming”
period follows and members
conform. However, external pressures from the group on the
individual are greater too. Cohe-
sive groups put more pressure on deviants to conform to group
norms than less cohesive
groups do. We can see this from early on in grade school, by
peer pressure on what to wear,
what to eat, who to develop friendships with, and so on. A
“tight” group may well exclude
anyone who doesn’t conform to its standards. While the criteria
involved may become more
subtle and more sophisticated among adults, the logic of the
situation can be quite similar.
Individual identity may be more stifled and restricted in highly
cohesive groups. Because
members are typically closer to one another, they may feel an
investment in how you look,
dress, or talk. If you try to change aspects of your personal
identity—even in a positive
direction, such as becoming more physically fit—you may find
to your surprise that other
group members ignore, criticize, or otherwise undermine your

attempts at improvement.
This phenomenon is not unusual in families, youth peer groups,
or businesses when
members lose weight, change their style of dress, or attend
college for more education.
However, once again, if group goals are positive and benefit the
larger organization, the
individual who conforms, even if initially uncomfortable about
doing so, can benefit. But
as we will see, such conformity can also have significant
drawbacks.
6.4 CohesionOutcomes:“TheBadStuff”
We already know that particular group goals may be damaging,
even deadly, to indi-
vidual members. Recall from the chapter introduction the loyal
German soldiers, the Japa-
nese pilots, and the followers of Jim Jones, who were willing to
die for their country or
community. However, the processes of high group cohesion can
have harmful effects,
even if the goals of the group are far from deadly.
Despite some very basic negative research findings (Friedman &
Jacks, 1969) from as far
back as 50 years ago, there is still a persistent tendency for
researchers, coaches, and com-
panies to see the outcomes of group cohesion as almost entirely
constructive. It is not clear
why such a positive bias around the concept of group cohesion
occurs. Perhaps our own
personal experiences in cohesive groups blur our professional
judgment. Perhaps when
positive outcomes occur, they are just so enriching that we
overlook the less beneficial
effects of group cohesion. Despite these perceptual blinkers,

negative effects of cohesion
are plentiful. Not only that, when the harmful effects of group
cohesiveness occur, they
tend to be spectacularly bad.
It’s unfortunate, but almost certainly the identical dynamics that
were described above
that produce many of the “good” outcomes in groups also
produce the “bad” outcomes
in groups. The major culprits are the desire among group
members to remain in the group
and to please one another. These attractions are what give
groups an enhanced ability to
influence members and enforce conformity, for good or for ill.
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 125 9/1/11 9:52 AM
PluralisticIgnorance
Because individuals want to be liked, to continue to belong, and
to get along with other
members, cohesive groups can tend toward surface—sometimes
superficial—harmony.
To avoid confrontation and other forms of ill will, members will
publicly agree with each
other even when they privately disagree. This apparent accord
can lead to a phenomenon
called pluralistic ignorance. Although a group majority may
agree with them, the behav-
ior of a vocal minority—with silence from the majority who
disagree—means that those
taking what is in fact a majority position may feel outnumbered.

Each member believes
that he or she is the lone, quiet dissenter in an otherwise unified
collectivity. Group deci-
sions may reflect these misperceptions, leading to decisions that
end up rendering most
members silent but unhappy.
ScapegoatingandAggression
Even if a brave member dares to speak up in opposition,
cohesive groups can be much cru-
eler toward “deviants” than less unified groups. Scapegoating,
hostility, and aggression
are more common and more severe toward deviants in higher
cohesion groups. Indeed,
the tighter the group, the more likely those who do not fit the
group’s criteria, will be
excluded. In this case, the unity of the group may function to
prevent important critical
and dissenting voices from being heard; indeed, such voices
may be omitted altogether.
This may well not be to the group’s advantage.
Self-Censorship
If they remain in the group, deviants tend to become isolated
due to the actions of the
other members. One possibility, of course, is that the deviant
changes his or her mind
toward the apparent majority opinion and will be welcomed as a
“prodigal” (Schachter,
ManagementConnections
CreatingCohesion
You are in charge of human resources for an engineering

company in Georgia that has recently bought out a
small, but valuable, Mexican engineering firm. As part of the
buyout arrangement, about a dozen upper-level
managers and 10 workers with a great deal of seniority will be
moving to your Georgia office. Most speak English
well; some of them have no accent, some have a more
noticeable accent.
Your company has approximately 100 employees, many of
whom have worked for you for many years. Your
employees interact well, form a very cohesive group, and have
very little conflict.
Your boss has told you that you will need to develop strategies
and techniques to make sure the Mexican employ-
ees feel comfortable in the workplace, and feel part of the team
as quickly as possible. In part, this is to make for
a more comfortable work environment; but these new employees
have a great deal of experience and informa-
tion that is a very valuable resource for your company to access
and utilize.
How do you go about doing what your boss wants you to do?
Name some specific strategies you might try to
make the new workers feel part of the team. How do you
prevent them from detracting from the already-present
employee cohesiveness? How can you develop ways of making
sure the new workers add to workplace unity?
What challenges do you foresee having to overcome, in order to
satisfy your boss’s demands?
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 126 9/1/11 9:52 AM

1951). However, deviants may also decide to leave the group
(Curseu et al., 2011). When
group members are aware of severe sanctions toward deviants,
they may engage in self-
censorship, either avoiding contentious topics entirely or
carefully monitoring their verbal
responses. Self-censorship means the group will lose the
advantages of potentially useful
information.
For example, suppose a manufacturing team is heavily invested
in terms of effort and
resources in a new project. Everyone speaks glowingly of the
new product. However,
one of the more experienced designers realizes there are some
critical flaws in its design.
Will she speak up? If the consequences of disagreement appear
harsh, for example, social
isolation or even a lackluster annual evaluation, our designer
may hesitate to make any
comments and the group loses the value of her expertise.
Groupthink
Irving Janis (1996) used the term groupthink to describe a
process in which strong group
cohesion can lead to a cycle of bad decision making. Janis
proposed that bad decisions
could occur when group members are exposed only to limited
and one-sided information,
typically information that supports decisions the group has
already decided to take. Due
to strong in-group cohesion, opposition to poor decisions from
within may be effectively
stifled. Opposition from outside the group is never examined.

Historic disasters such as
the 1986 explosion of the spaceship Challenger occur, leaving
group members to shake
their heads, wondering what went wrong.
Janis explored several of the mechanisms he believes contribute
to groupthink. The sur-
face harmony resulting from strong cohesion and pluralistic
ignorance, especially when
combined with perceptions of group enemies in the
environment, can contribute to group
insularity or insulation. In insular groups, members tend to
interact primarily with each
other and they avoid cross-group contacts. Once an imposed
apparent group homogene-
ity emerges, the group has closed itself off from cross-
fertilization of ideas or corrective
input for its mistakes. Further, since members largely interact
with one another, they may
begin to feel invulnerable and superior to those who are not
group members. The more
insulated the group, the less corrective feedback they receive,
the greater the tendency for
the group to feel invulnerable, and the greater the possibility of
poor decisions.
Given these self-protective strategies, members can propose
extreme ideas and face nei-
ther challenges nor corrections from other group members or
from outsiders. Problems
with the group’s proposed solutions may be ignored or glossed
over. Group failures
become interpreted as caused by problems in the outside
environment or by enemies and
the dismal cycle continues.

Because groupthink has affected policy decisions, such as the
1961 U.S. invasion of the Bay
of Pigs in Cuba or the Challenger explosion in which engineer
concerns about the O-rings
in the rocket were minimized by the group, considerable
research about it has used cre-
ative forms of archival research or content analyses rather than
laboratory experiments
with undergraduates. Philip Tetlock’s (1992) research informs
us that while strong group
cohesion fosters groupthink, it is not the sole guilty party. An
overly directive group leader
can dampen attempts by other group members to point out any
problems with the leader’s
course of action. Another critically important aspect is a
structure that discourages, or at
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 127 9/1/11 9:52 AM
least fails to actively encour-
age, interaction between
the group and its outside
environment.
The first sign that groupthink
has caused serious problems
within the collectivity may be
when members begin to leave
the group without signifying
their intentions or even giv-
ing an explanation. Fewer and
fewer people attend group

meetings and, in voluntary
organizations, the group cof-
fers may begin to dip precipi-
tously low. Group productivity
may steeply drop, and outside
authorities such as bosses are called in to investigate. In the
meantime the remaining mem-
bers refuse to even admit that there are any problems with the
group or its decisions.
Groupthink is a phenomenon that business managers, chief
executive officers, and owners
must learn about and guard against. The consequences of this
kind of decision making can
not only spell financial doom for a company, but damage it
severely enough in reputation
or member attrition that recovery can become exceptionally
difficult. A group of investors
may convince each other, for instance, that a given stock is a
steal. The members of the
group invest a great deal of money, convincing each other that
it is a wise investment. The
groupthink on display here not only motivates each of them to
continue to invest, their
mutual commitment prevents them from recognizing as early as
they might that the stock
is a terrible investment, something they learn when they lose all
their money. Markets have
a remarkable ability, after all, to demonstrate the negative
consequences of groupthink.
To combat groupthink means encouraging employees to give
honest feedback—and not
penalizing them for it. It means the business must make the
effort to become thoroughly
engaged with its environment and to avoid isolation. It should

ensure that key employees
are active in civic and professional organizations and stay
abreast of new developments.
CohesionandProductivity:AnotherLook
As noted earlier, the valences of group cohesion outcomes
heavily depend on just what the
group norms are. While studying group productivity after World
War II, group dynami-
cists discovered to their considerable surprise that productivity
outcomes for cohesive
groups tended to be polarized, that is, they were either very
productive or very unproduc-
tive in terms of the standards the experimenters created. Thus
they discovered that the
average productivity of cohesive groups was quite close to that
of far less cohesive groups
(examples of the diverse findings: Stogdill, 1972; Sypher, 1977;
Vaisman, 1977).
In fact, if group goals diverge from organizational goals, not
only may the group as a whole
become less productive by organizational standards, it may also
reject those members
Was the stock market crash that set off the Great Recession
a product, in part, of groupthink on the part of investors in
the subprime mortgage market?
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 128 9/1/11 9:52 AM

who are industrious by organizational standards. Students may
remember how the “class
brain” could be ostracized in particular courses.
Why have there been such discrepant results of how group
cohesion influences productiv-
ity? Highly cohesive groups who valued social interaction spent
their time on chitchat and
social events, not on the group task imposed by the
experimenter. Everyone got along well;
everyone liked everyone else a great deal. Given the
interpersonal ties definition of cohe-
sion, these groups were obviously quite cohesive. However,
group task generativity was
poor. Haven’t we all experienced work groups like this? The
social aspects of the group are
great; the only problem is that not a whole lot of work gets
done. A study by Salary.com
(“Employee engagement,” n.d.) indicates, for instance, these
data about productivity losses:
1. Surfing the Internet for personal use accounted for 44.7
percent of all lost
productivity.
2. Socializing with co-workers accounted for 23.4 percent.
3. Conducting personal business (technical and nontechnical)
accounted for
6.8 percent.
4. Spacing out accounted for 3.9 percent.
5. Running errands away from the premises accounted for 3.1
percent.
Certainly 23.4 percent is a significant loss of productivity; an
effective manager may want

to develop strategies for minimizing this kind of socializing
without lessening the cohe-
siveness among fellow employees. After what we discussed
earlier, this also calls for a
delicate balancing act.
Consider youth gangs as another example. These may be highly
cohesive, but their goals
may conflict with those of the larger society including their
families, schools, and neighbor-
hoods. If the gang is highly cohesive, the group will be able to
enforce its goals even if these
prove deadly (for example, gang warfare) or detrimental to
particular individuals, such as
severe injury or even a prison sentence.
As should be clear, just because a group is cohesive and tightly
knit does not mean it is
promoting positive outcomes. Other factors must be considered
in determining the value
of the group and its potential
for becoming a productive,
effective team. A good man-
ager will develop techniques
to foster unity and cohesive-
ness among team members
and employees as a whole.
Several such techniques have
been discussed above. At the
same time, the manager must
be aware of some of the draw-
backs of cohesion, including
generating a work environ-
ment not conducive to pro-
ductive work, and making it

difficult to hear valuable but
critical dissenting voices.
Can cohesion within the group be too much of a good thing?
Some reports say excessive socializing is one of the biggest
contributors to productivity losses.
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 129 9/1/11 9:52 AM
CHAPTER 6What Did We Discover?
Summary
Interpersonal, structural, and organizational factors all impact
the feelings of cohesion
or togetherness groups experience. Teams and groups are
related, but they are not quite
the same thing. Team cohesion can be deliberately fostered, but
can also be damaged by
things like social loafing. Cohesion, in general, can have
positive outcomes, but also has
the potential for a large number of bad outcomes. Cohesion can
result in issues like plural-
istic ignorance, scapegoating and aggression, self-censorship,
and groupthink.
WhatDidWeDiscover?
• Groups and teams can find cohesion on the basis of a number
of different factors,
including shared goals and sharing the same physical space.
• A number of things can help reinforce group and team unity,
such as members
sharing common goals and being given increased responsibility.

• Any group or team confronts a number of challenges to
cohesiveness, including
too much reliance on familiarity and teams becoming unified
around their exclud-
ing others.
• Teams and groups are distinct in how they are structured and
in how the members
of each take responsibility for the goals they seek to
accomplish.
BusinessApplicationExercises
1. How can a manager make sure dissenting voices are not
excluded as simply
“deviant” and thus not heard?
2. Describe a situation you have been in when critical or
dissenting views were a
welcome part of the work environment. What were the benefits
of this occurring?
3. Explain why a work environment that is not conducive to
dissenting voices may
end up being harmed. If you have been in this situation,
describe it.
4. Describe someone you have worked with, or gone to school
with, who prevented
a team or group you were in from being as productive as it
might have been. What
kinds of things might have been in place to prevent, or at least
minimize, this?
5. Describe a collection of people you have worked with before.

Would you character-
ize that collection as a team or a group? Explain why you chose
the term you did.
KeyTerms
common group goals
emotional arousal
group
group homogeneity
group insularity
groupthink
interdependent goals
interpersonal sources of group cohesion
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 130 9/1/11 9:52 AM
CHAPTER 6What Did We Discover?
RelatedWebLinks
HowCostcoBecametheAnti-Wal-Mart
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/costco_vs_sams.php
SixWaystoCreateaMoreProductiveWorkEnvironment

http://www.polepositionmarketing.com/emp/six-ways-to-create-
a-more-productive
-work-environment/
Propinquity:IstheLackofPropinquityKillingYourProject?
http://www.agileevidence.com/2009/07/propinquity-is-lack-of-
propinquity.html
JapaneseWorkEnvironment
http://www.culture-at-work.com/usjapan.html
CreatingandManagingEffectiveTeamsintheWorkplace
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/436522/creating_and_
managing_effective
_teams.html?cat=3
TheOriginsofAppleInc.
http://www.geeks.com/techtips/2006/techtips-10aug06.htm
BrandExtractPartnerswithMarathonOiltoLaunchNewBrandandW
ebsite
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brandextract-partners-with-
marathon-oil-to
-launch-new-brand-and-website-2011-06-30
EmployeeEngagement:SevenFactorstoDissatisfaction,Two
Solution

s
http://www.itwerks.ca/employee-productivity-resource-
center/when-considering-employee
-monitoring/employee-engagement-seven-factors-to-
dissatisfaction-two-solutions.htm
meta analysis
organizational factors of cohesion
physical arousal
pluralistic ignorance
propinquity
scapegoating
self-censorship
shared identity
social loafing

structural sources of cohesion
team
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 131 9/1/11 9:52 AM
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/costco_vs_sams.php
a-more-productive-work-environment/
a-more-productive-work-environment/
http://www.agileevidence.com/2009/07/propinquity-is-lack-of-
propinquity.html
http://www.culture-at-work.com/usjapan.html
managing_effective_teams.html?cat=3
managing_effective_teams.html?cat=3
http://www.geeks.com/techtips/2006/techtips-10aug06.htm
marathon-oil-to-launch-new-brand-and-website-2011-06-30
marathon-oil-to-launch-new-brand-and-website-2011-06-30
center/when-considering-employee-monitoring/employee-

engagement-seven-factors-to-dissatisfaction-two-solutions.htm
center/when-considering-employee-monitoring/employee-
engagement-seven-factors-to-dissatisfaction-two-solutions.htm
Los66308_06_c06_p111-132.indd 132 9/1/11 9:52 AM
5
Attraction to Groups
Learning Objectives
What We Will Be Investigating
• Whatmakesagroupworkmostefficiently?
•
Whattechniquesareavailabletomakegroupmembersfeelmoreasifth
eyare
partoftheteam?
•

Howcanmanagersavoidmakingmembersofanorganizationfeelexcl
uded?
• Whatarethechallengesofmeasuringhowcohesiveagroupreallyis?
Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 91 9/1/11 9:59 AM
CHAPTER 5Introduction
Chapter Outline
“If you give people tools, [and they use]
their natural ability and their curiosity, they will
develop things in ways that will surprise you
very much beyond what you might have expected.”
—Bill Gates
Businesses, teams, nonprofits, and many other organizations are
built around groups. The
success of these organizations often depends on how well
groups within the organization
function in order to be more productive and efficient, as well as

to be more satisfying to
the members who belong to the organization.
In this chapter, we explore some of the dynamics of how people
work together, in order to see
what factors are involved in increasing the effectiveness of
groups. We will also look at some
of the challenges organizations encounter, and consider some
possible responses to those
challenges in order to avoid them or at least to minimize the
potential risks they may pose.
Sit down for a minute and consider all the various groups that
you belong to. Now think
back to how and why you joined each of these groups. Recall
from Chapter 3 that some
groups, such as your family, are ascriptive, which means you
were born or adopted into
that group. You may have joined other groups when you were
young because your fam-
ily belonged to them, such as a particular religious
congregation. You may still belong to
that house of worship, or perhaps you have joined a new
congregation or even converted
to a different faith. You probably had little choice about which

high school you attended,
although you may have voluntarily joined clubs there, such as
choir or future engineers.
As you grew older, your choices about your membership groups
and aspiring member-
ship groups increased, as did the number of possible available
groups. Even during high
school you had preferences about your friends, school clubs, or
a romantic partner. You
had considerably more latitude about picking the college you
attend than you did about
your high school. You chose your college major. And even
when economic times are
tough, you have some options about employment. You’ve
probably added new friends,
different romantic partners, and college activities. You also may
belong to a professional
association, a neighborhood crime-watch group, or a hobby
club. Although virtually all
of us belong to groups, how many and which groups we belong
to can show individual
differences as well as differences by our social location.
5.1 FactorsofAttraction

Personality
Gender
Similarity
Other Factors
5.2 ExchangeTheories
5.3 Entering,Maintaining,andLeavingGroups
5.4 CreatingProductiveGroups:
AnIntroductiontoGroupCohesion
What Is Group Cohesion?
How Do We Measure Group Cohesion?
Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 92 9/1/11 9:59 AM
CHAPTER 5Section 5.1 Factors of Attraction
5.1 FactorsofAttraction
Individuals join groups for many reasons, some of which bear
surprisingly little surface
relationship to the ostensible rationale for the group’s
existence. One might think, for

example, that adult parishioners join a particular religious
congregation after consider-
able thought because its doctrine, theology, or liturgy are
consistent with the parishio-
ner’s own, or perhaps because the individual finds the services
spiritually uplifting. Yet
research has found that of there are other popular reasons to
join a specific congregation,
including
• Location. Place of worship is convenient to the parishioner’s
home.
• Belonging. The parishioner’s close friends or neighbors
belong to that congregation
and/or it is a great way to become part of the community.
• Inspiration. The preacher delivers really rousing sermons—
you don’t fall asleep
during this pastor’s sermons!
• Loyalty. The parishioner grew up in this denomination or even
this congregation.
• Economic. This congregation will help the parishioner grow a
local real estate or

catering business.
Similarly, a young manager may join a civic business group for
several reasons that have
little to do with her or his job or with forging business
connections:
• It’s a great place to meet potential romantic partners.
• The appetizers are consistently delicious.
• The young manager lives alone and hates going home to an
empty apartment.
• Some of his or her best friends from college belong.
• The group recruiter made a special effort to sign up the
manager.
• The first-year membership fees are so low that (especially
when the food is consid-
ered) it’s practically free!
Situation-specific variations on these reasons (e.g., convenient
to work or to a bus/sub-
way line) can also help explain the neighborhoods we choose,
the jobs we take, or the
clubs we join.

As you can see, what makes a particular group appealing to a
specific potential member is
not always immediately obvious. Attractive features, described
in more detail below, can
relate to personality, gender, power and prestige, propinquity,
the group’s unconditional
acceptance of a recruit, mere exposure, and similarity.
Personality
The negotiation of a personality-oriented perspective versus a
situational perspective
emerges frequently in the study of group processes. Which
perspective you choose to
believe can determine how you will approach any particular
group dynamics topic. For
example, if you take a personality perspective, you might favor
individual assertiveness
training to bring shy individuals out of their shell and make
them more social, perhaps
even assuming leadership positions. If you take a situational
approach you might try to
help your shy members increase their interpersonal interactions
by altering aspects of
group interaction, or even redesigning your physical work or

living spaces. For example,
Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 93 9/1/11 9:59 AM
comfortable sofas, a small refrigerator, and a cof-
fee machine in an employee lounge can invite
workers to cluster there.
Most of the time when we study group processes,
we address the social aspects, such as specific
roles or conformity. However, at times individual
differences or personality variables appear rel-
evant to joining or playing roles in a group. Lead-
ership, of course, is one obvious example in both
the research literature and in popular stereotypes;
we take a thorough look at leadership in Chap-
ter 9. Another issue where personality traits may
be relevant is why we join groups, the kinds of
groups we join, and how many groups we join.
What do we know about personality character-

istics that could affect group processes? Many
taxonomies of personality describes an intro-
version-extroversion dimension, or a “moving
toward” people versus a “moving away” orien-
tation. Scholars such as Jerome Kagan (Kagan,
2004; Rimm-Kaufman & Kagan, 2005) believe that
qualities such extroversion are basic, biologically
influenced individual traits. The general theory
goes that individuals with relatively high inter-
nal levels of neural stimulation (introverts) seek
quieter surroundings to dampen down neural
excitement to an optimal level, while those with
relatively low internal levels of neural stimula-
tion (extroverts) seek more exciting surroundings
in order to maintain a comfortable internal equi-
librium of neural stimulation. This, of course, is a
predilection only; Kagan points out it is not even
close to “biology is destiny.” Recent research indi-
cates that whatever we wish to call these relatively
constant methods of acting upon and responding
to one’s environment, they can be recognizably
stable for decades.
Recall from the discussion of social facilitation
(Chapter 1) that the mere presence of other people

can be physically arousing. Thus extroverts may
seek out others to raise their levels of arousal. For
extroverts, the mere presence of others can be stimulating and
rewarding, so extroverts can
grow to relish life in groups. For introverts, however, the
increased arousal levels created
by the presence of others is undesirable. Thus, among introverts
the presence of others may
become associated with discomfort and a desire for solitude,
making them more likely to
avoid group situations. Introverts enjoy time without the
distraction of others. Their best
Negotiating and handling different
personality types is an important part
of any manager’s job.
Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 94 9/1/11 9:59 AM
work may come when they are able to work alone. Introversion-

extroversion is one of these
trait constellations that is remarkably consistent, although
introverts do become somewhat
more sociable over the lifespan and extroverts become
somewhat more subdued.
One of your responsibilities as a group leader or facilitator will
be to guide members with
introversion and extroversion tendencies. You will need to
recognize these traits in your
members and work to establish and maintain group productivity
and cohesiveness as
these personalities interact and sometimes clash.
Techniques to deal with some of the personal tendencies you
might find in a group can
be simple. Philip Zimbardo (1999) conducted research about
shyness with young chil-
dren at school. His method of overcoming shyness and
encouraging these children to
become more sociable has been to drape simple brown lunch
bags over their heads, with
holes cuts for eyes, nose, and mouth. Apparently, despite what
would seem to be the
conspicuousness of brown bags for heads, hiding one’s face

makes timid youngsters less
self-conscious and more outgoing.
Obviously the type of experience one has had in groups counts
too. People who have gen-
erally had supportive, positive group experiences in the past
will seek similar situations
more often. The kind of group may vary as well. Some people
are drawn to task-oriented
groups while others join groups that appear to support
socioemotional needs.
Our location in the social system or life cycle stage often
determines the attractiveness of a
particular group. Someone active in the business world may join
a civic group, such as the
local chamber of commerce, to generate a network of
professional contacts. A young par-
ent may want assistance or social support from a “mothers’
morning out” club. Teenagers
look to their peers to provide information—and possible mates.
Retirees may sign up to
volunteer at local organizations or charities.
Within the world of work, individuals are first attracted to the

group because of personal
goals or because the group solicited the help of the individual in
order to accomplish group
goals. The individual works overtime to meet personal and
group goals. When those goals
BusinessintheRealWorld
DressforSuccess
Many companies expect their employees to dress in a certain
way. Of course, the nature of the work will deter-
mine this to some extent: A coal miner is not likely to wear a
coat and tie into the mine. Standard office dress
generally is considered to be business suits, dress shirts, and
ties for men and skirted suits or tailored pantsuits for
women. The uniformity of dress reduces distractions and helps
employees identify with each other.
Some companies have also instituted a “casual” day—often
Fridays—as a way of improving worker morale, and
can also help with the cohesiveness of the group. Imagine the
employees of Company X going to lunch on “casual
Friday” wearing blue jeans and Hawaiian shirts. They may well
see employees from Company Y in business suits;
this allows the employees from Company X another opportunity

to see their group as a cohesive unit, and also
helps identify those (the employees of Company Y) who are
excluded from that unit. In this way, both kinds of
dress codes can help generate group cohesion and increase
organizational unity.
What advantages do you see from a company having a “casual
Friday”? What disadvantages might arise?
Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 95 9/1/11 9:59 AM
are accomplished or when it becomes evident to the individual
that the group no longer
holds the same attractiveness, a breakdown or disintegration of
the individual’s relation-
ship with the group may occur. This is something that you must
always remember as a
group member or as a group leader.
Gender

Although sex differences have been reported in some of the
group dynamics research lit-
erature, one social source of gender disparities that becomes
immediately apparent upon
reflection is life cycle issues. More women than men tend full-
time to domestic labor,
including childcare. More men than women are found at the top
of business and pro-
fessional echelons. Increasingly, retirees are disproportionately
females, who live alone,
because of current sex differences in life span longevity (see,
e.g., Austad, 2011).
Thus, at least part of the greater propensity some researchers
find for women to join more
“informal and intimate groups” (Maccoby, 1990; Tiger, 2005) is
their location in social
structures and roles that make the “informal trading” of
information and social support
more likely—for example, as young mothers or elderly widows.
Since men in their middle
years are more likely than women to be engaged full-time in the
economic marketplace,
men more often join structured groups such as professional
associations or business clubs.

Finally, remember that nature and society may block
membership in certain groups by gen-
der. Almost all members of Lamaze breastfeeding classes are
female, for obvious reasons.
Some business groups still exclude women from membership or
use unwritten sanctions
to make women uncomfortable in largely male groups, so they
neither join nor attend.
Often such arrangements are informal; a group of businessmen
may conduct important
discussions while golfing at
an all-male golf club, or may
interact after taking part in an
activity that is clearly exclu-
sive, whether a night out at a
“gentleman’s club” or play-
ing in a men’s softball league.
The question then becomes
whether these discussions
function as carrying out an
organization’s business, and
what problems might emerge
from this exclusivity.
Similarity

Similarity is the number one
factor fostering attraction to
a group (Montoya, Horton,
& Kirchner, 2008) . Similarity
can take several forms. It can
be based on demographics or
The exclusion of women from workplace environments may
often be subtle—perhaps woven into prior cultural norms
among men rather than a conscious, formal plan. A typical
golf outing among male colleagues may be one such cultural
factor that works to make women feel like outsiders in their
own company.
Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 96 9/1/11 9:59 AM
one’s stage in the life cycle (e.g., young mothers). The group
may appeal to members of a par-
ticular age group, educational type (e.g., college graduates) or
occupation (e.g., attorneys).

Recall from Stanley Schacter’s research described in Chapter 4
that similarity also can be
based on specific circumstances, such as waiting for a strong
versus a mild electric shock
as part of an experiment. The “American abroad” phenomenon
refers to the presumed
similarity upon meeting another person from the United States
while visiting a different
country, particularly if the second individual is from the same
state or city. Because the two
individuals are in a place foreign to them, they form a group
due to the relative similarity
they share in nationality. Yet they may be different in every
other way and would not form
a group at all in any other context. Similarity can also occur on
values and attitudes, such
as politics or consumer goals, and the group may be seen as one
avenue to express these.
Why is similarity so important? First, similarity is comfortable.
We find it easier to imme-
diately start a conversation with similar others, because we
believe we will have inter-
ests and conversational topics in common. The behavior of

similar others appears more
predictable, thus lulling our initial social anxieties. Similar
others may be able to give us
useful advice that is based on relevant circumstances or
dilemmas. Thus, to interact with
similar others can be intrinsically rewarding.
Many group dynamicists go further. Recall that Leon
Festinger’s theory of social com-
parison is now over 50 years old (it appeared in Human
Relations in 1954). Festinger and
his contemporaries took a highly cognitive approach to group
processes, believing that
similar others were more informative for us than dissimilar
others. Similar others tell
us what is reasonable to expect, how well we are performing
compared with our peers,
and help us feel less embarrassed about anxiety-provoking
situations. A company may,
for example, have a number of employees who went to the same
university; this similar-
ity may make these employees feel more comfortable, and each
employee thus has oth-
ers with whom he or she can discuss various work-related
issues. The increased comfort

level, based on this similarity, may provide these employees
with information they regard
as reliable, and offers an environment where this kind of
communication becomes more
frequent. Having access, then, to those who are similar can
often make the work environ-
ment more comfortable and, consequently, more productive.
The notion that group membership can be rewarding for us
spurred the development of
several exchange theories. Rewards for group membership can
stem from the benefits
individuals receive. However, we also can invest considerable
time, energy, money, and
other resources in groups, thereby incurring personal costs.
Further, groups differ in terms
of how much they reward individuals and in what kind of
rewards they bestow. Groups that
appear to become too costly ultimately may lose members or
have trouble attracting new
recruits.
For instance, a woman may be offered a very lucrative
partnership in a well-known law
firm. The rewards are significant: In addition to the obvious

financial gains involved, she
will also receive increased access to important and influential
members of her profes-
sion, and the position brings with it considerable prestige. At
the same time, the position
requires extensive travel, requiring her often to be away from
her family. Here, she may
well regard the rewards of this position as not being sufficient
to outweigh the costs of
being away from her young children.
Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 97 9/1/11 9:59 AM
CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Exchange Theories
Correctly assessing the costliness of group membership is a
very important business and
group application. As you return to the workplace or group
participation it is important to
make sure that your group or organization attracts and not
repels current and potential mem-
bers. Managers must develop techniques to achieve this very
important strategic initiative.

OtherFactors
The potential membership group may offer the new member
tangible or intangible
rewards or an ability to meet goals that coincide with the
individual’s own values and
standards. For example, joining a particular civic organization
may help the new mem-
ber’s real estate business by providing a ready—and
renewable—source of customers. For
many people, the prestige or power of the group can be a very
important resource. The
formal versus informal dimension of groups can become
important here because formal
groups may be able to provide greater tangible rewards and
more prestige to members
more thoroughly and readily than informal groups can. While
such intangible benefits
may be difficult to quantify, or to put a price tag on, they can
clearly be very significant.
Access to those who can help one advance in his or her career,
via networking, is such
an intangible but extremely valuable benefit. Public recognition
within the organization

or in the larger community, the personal satisfaction one gains
by taking on challenges
and meeting them, and developing a more broadly based and
more widely applied set
of skills within one’s profession can all be regarded as such
intangible rewards. In some
circumstances, these intangible benefits can be as important to
an individual as the more
traditional and quantifiable rewards a position offers.
Another engaging feature of a group can be its acceptance of the
individual as a new
member, that is, other people in the group find the member
personally attractive and
freely express their feelings. The group may engage in active
recruitment. Often active
recruitment occurs because members are people the individual
already knows. For exam-
ple a cult might express unconditional approval for the
individual and offer an effusive
welcome with the hope of recruiting that individual to be part of
the cult.
Very often we interact continuously with the same people who
live or work nearby; thus

propinquity and familiarity can make a group desirable.
Although these features could
be a matter of convenience, they need not be. We know from
Robert Zajonc’s research
(1968), among others, about the positive effects of repeated
mere exposure research that,
other things being equal, means the more we are exposed to
something and the more
familiar it is, the more we like it.
5.2 ExchangeTheories
When contemplating an expensive purchase, such as a house or
a car, individuals often
engage in a cost-benefit analysis; if the total expenditure
appears to exceed the rewards
they expect the acquisition to provide, they may consequently
either fail to buy that item
or reformulate their wants. A business may decide against
hiring new employees if it
believes these workers will not create sufficient new business to
justify their cost. This is
commonly known as a return on investment (ROI) in business
circles. CEOs, boards of
Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 98 9/1/11 9:59 AM

directors, and managers carefully track the ROI of strategies,
acquisitions, and human
resources. As a group member, consider how you and others in
the group enhance the
investment that the group or organization is making. Similarly,
there often is a tangible
or psychological benefit for the person wanting to join the
group. Social psychologists
have proposed that similar processes may occur when someone
considers entering a new
group or creating a new relationship. Individuals weigh the
costs of joining a group and
participating in its activities against the rewards they anticipate
receiving in return.
The rewards of joining a group or beginning a relationship are
diverse and can consist of:
• Group resources can include, among many other things, the
feelings of self-satisfaction

that the status and prestige of membership can bestow.
• Socioemotional benefits include the alleviation of loneliness
through group interac-
tion, a sense of belonging, and contributions to one’s social or
collective identity.
• Rewards can also be more tangible, such as access to Internet
technology at a good
university or higher interest rates on savings at a particular
bank.
• Advancement goals may be more easily achieved in a group
than individually, such
as the opportunity to work with exceptional students or pay
lower rates for health
insurance for workers at a particular company.
However, the costs of joining a group or starting a new
relationship also can be plenty:
• Financial. Financial investments of various kinds, from
initiation fees for a frater-
nity, sorority, or country club to more expensive clothing for
the job to nursery

school costs for employed parents.
• Time. The time required, especially at the beginning of the
relationship or group
membership, in addition to time spent in meetings and routine
group activities.
• Effort. The amount of effort involved such
as typing meeting minutes, setting up a
new store display, or studying for the state
legal bar exam.
• Regret. Less obvious costs include forgone
opportunities. Generally you can only
attend one university at a time, marry one
person at a time, or work for one com-
pany at a time. “Buyer’s remorse” refers
to the feelings of sadness involved after
a purchase that involved a choice among
alternatives.
• Social. Costs can also be social. For exam-
ple, in the course of working with other
members to set goals or create a course
of action, you may experience unpleas-

ant confrontations with others. Ultimately
such disputes may even become impor-
tant enough to split the group.
Sociologist George Homans’s theory of exchange in
groups (1974) emphasized “minimax” principles—
A sense of belonging can be a socio-
emotional benefit to group member-
ship that’s just as powerful and fulfill-
ing as any tangible reward.
Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 99 9/1/11 9:59 AM
that minimal costs and maxi-
mum rewards make a group
more attractive to recruits
or even to current members.
Homans believed that if the
costs of group membership
increased to become greater

than its rewards, or if rewards
dropped or costs increased
during one’s tenure as a mem-
ber, individuals would begin
to leave the group. Here one
might consider the Internet-
based company Google. Its
business model has been
remarkably successful by
emphasizing the importance
of employees for meeting its
goals. Google insists that its
employees feel part of the organization, and make that clear by
emphasizing its innovations,
from its health and retirement plans, to its flexible and generous
scheduling options for vaca-
tion and maternity leave, and even free laundry facilities.
Google’s workers consistently
point out how much time they spend at work, but just as
consistently identify it as one of the
best companies to work for in the United States (see”100 Best
Companies,” 2011)
Often to gain employment with organizations, applicants must

possess a college degree
applicable to the job that is being applied for. The degree
represents a personal cost that the
applicant was willing to incur in the hope of future gain or
reward. In order to minimize
the costs associated with attaining the degree, the applicant
often searches for schools that
offer comparable degrees at lower costs. The applicants also
seek ways to reduce the costs
associated with materials needed for school. The applicant
assumes the risks associated
with going to school because of recognized proof that having a
degree increases earning
potential after graduation. Thus applicants for certain jobs view
education costs as being
necessary for obtaining desired positions in the work
environment.
Life is not always as simple as toting up the rewards and costs
of group membership,
then staying or leaving as the benefits and costs balance out.
Many costs and rewards are
hard to quantify, such as feelings of satisfaction. Furthermore,
without other options, an
individual may feel constrained to remain with his or her

current group or relationship.
For example, during hard economic times, people keep the jobs
they already have, fearing
that another job may not become readily available or that the
current employment alterna-
tives are worse than the job they now have. An individual may
remain in an unrewarding
“love” relationship, feeling that it is better than being alone or
fearing that no one as good
as the current partner will come along.
Thus individuals also need to consider their available choices.
Thibaut and Kelley’s classic
(1959) interdependence theory directly addresses this issue of
alternatives. In Thibaut and
Kelley’s theory, individuals have an established and relatively
stable comparison level
(CL) of expectations for their interactions, rewards, and costs
associated with a particular
Like Google, many companies today provide an abundance
of attractive features to their employees, such as strong ben-
efits plans, free food, and even help with daily chores, like
laundry facilities.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 100 9/1/11 9:59 AM
group. Their comparison level can come from previous
experiences, the experiences of
similar others, cultural expectations, or advance research
completed through libraries or
the Internet. Perhaps even the individual’s level of self-esteem
may affect his or her CL.
For example, your salary expectations may be based on your
initial salary working for
a company, what you’ve been able to glean about salaries from
co-workers (since many
companies want their workers to hold salaries totally
confidential), and advertisements in
trade publications. These inflows of information plus current
employment figures in your
field can influence your decision to ask for a raise and the
dollar figure that you believe
you currently deserve, or to seek employment elsewhere.
Thibaut and Kelley also posit a comparison level for

alternatives: “CL
alt
” is the least sat-
isfying alternative available to the individual. Individuals are
hypothesized to compare
their CL with their CL
alt
to decide whether to leave or stay in a relationship, remain in
an
existing group, or join a new group.
Let’s take a very simplistic example: Consider someone who
currently holds a job paying
$40,000 per year. She interviews on the job market and is
blissfully happy to receive the
following three offers:
$45,000 per year
$50,000 per year
$55,000 per year

According to interdependence theory, our fortunate employee’s
choice is clear. Our job
seeker’s CL
alt
of $45,000, which is her lowest offer, is still greater than her
comparison
level, which is $40,000. Interdependence theory predicts she
will leave her current job to
take another, even if it is not the $55,000 job of her highest
offer, because she now knows
that her baseline of worth in the market is still more than she’s
currently being paid.
Of course, most situations are multidimensional and the
prospective member of a group,
or someone deciding to leave a group or relationship, typically
considers a range of alter-
natives along each dimension. All together, Thibaut and Kelley
believe that if
CL > CL
alt

the individual will remain in the current group
CL < CL
alt
the individual will leave the current group
CL = CL
alt
the choice cannot be predicted
While some of this may seem like simple common sense, it is
important to recognize that not
all researchers agree with minimax principles. Equity theory
(Adams, 1965), for example,
postulates that individuals will try to achieve consistency
between their costs and rewards
in their interactions with others. For example, if you work very
hard yet feel underpaid for
your efforts, due to your perceived disparity between cost (to
you in work) and reward (to
you in compensation) you may feel compelled to seek
employment in a group where these

where cost and reward were better aligned for you. On a less
formal basis, we often discuss
our romantic relationships in almost economic terms. If we feel
we aren’t getting enough
out of a relationship, we may sever it. Conversely, it might
seem close to paradise to give
very little to a job or a relationship but to receive a great deal in
return.
Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 101 9/1/11 9:59 AM
CHAPTER 5Section 5.3 Entering, Maintaining, and Leaving
Groups
Minimax theory is a good theory for recognizing basic
behaviors for persons seeking
membership in a group. However, once a person joins a group,
commitment levels may
rise. This commitment level can be recognized by the amount of
extra effort that the per-
son will apply to assigned tasks and also the person’s strong
desire to maintain member-
ship in the group (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982) Consider

what is needed in order to
encourage higher levels of commitment to the group.
While all exchange theories assert that the underrewarded
usually become irate, feeling
cheated and deprived, and seriously consider leaving the group
or relationship, equity
theory directly addresses the case of overreward. The
overrewarded individuals may also
change their behavior (Leventhal, Weiss, & Long, 1969).
Realizing the inequity of receiv-
ing more than they should they might increase their group
inputs by, for example, work-
ing harder or producing more goods. If it is not possible to
increase the quantity of one’s
productivity in these situations, the individual may try to
increase the quality of his or her
output. Initially, the overrewarded also may feel guilty.
However, another possibility, par-
ticularly for those occupying a leadership role, is to alter their
perceptions of others, such
as co-workers—typically downward—to justify the higher
rewards they receive.
Consider Emily and James, who inherited a large, very valuable

company from their
father. Both were traditionally hard workers, but having gained
control of this company,
they discover that they spend considerably more time at work
than they used to; while
they used to work 50-hour weeks, they are now working 60-,
70-, and even 80-hour weeks.
In this way, they may be trying to justify their new positions of
increased power and
wealth. They also notice that most of their employees do not
spend the kind of hours at
work that they do, which also allows them explain to
themselves—or rationalize—why
they receive the much greater financial benefits that they do.
Exchanges also can occur across groups, contributing to the
decisions of two or more
groups to work together. We will address intragroup versus
intergroup cooperation ver-
sus competition in Chapter 10. It’s worth noting here, however,
that many groups regu-
larly engage in bargaining and mediation practices with each
other to achieve satisfactory
exchanges.

The exchange theory research literature makes it clear that
groups with relatively low
costs have an advantage attracting members. Groups offering
rewards, perhaps especially
rewards proportionate to costs, as the equity theory research
literature suggests, also have
an edge on gathering recruits. When a member has a choice of
groups, a group cannot
simply hold out rewards at the very beginning of admission. The
group that maintains
rewards—or rewarding experiences—throughout the
membership experience will prob-
ably have more success at maintaining membership, and thus,
continuing to survive.
5.3 Entering,Maintaining,andLeavingGroups
People enter groups several ways. Recall again the cliché “you
can choose your friends,
but you can’t choose your family.” From darling Aunt Lil to
eccentric Uncle Bill, family is
an ascribed group. In addition, prisoners, pupils, drafted
soldiers, workers in a bad labor
market, all can find themselves continuing in groups not of their
own choosing.

Los66308_05_c05_p091-110.indd 102 9/1/11 9:59 AM
CHAPTER 5Section 5.3 Entering, Maintaining, and Leaving
Groups
Similarly, you may have little choice about leaving a group. If
your violation of group norms
is severe enough, you can be expelled. In certain kinds of
routinized aggregates, such as col-
lege cohorts, the only way to stay a member is to fail.
Graduation, retirement, widowhood,
even promotions, are socially validated rites of passage to
commemorate role and group loss.
Let’s suppose you at least had some choice about affiliation.
Recall from Chapter 3 that
Bruce Tuckman has one theory of group growth and dispersion
that assumes
• members enter,
• make adjustments to one another,
• encounter conflict along the way in establishing one’s position
in the group and

setting group norms,
• and then eventually the group dissolves.
Recall, too, we would suspect that Tuckman probably
envisioned informal groups
because many groups (as well as formal organizations) survive
even several turnovers of
membership.
Moreland and Levine (1982) see a longer, perhaps even
permanent group phenomenon, a
continuing sequence of group socialization and resocialization.
Potential members investi-
gate a group and in turn groups recruit members. New members
undergo initiation rituals
and a period of adjustment. In return, the group may assist
members in their preferences. For
example, during the 1970s and 1980s, many American
businesses offered help with child-
care, flexible hours, and even job sharing to accommodate
changing norms about family care.
Once a member is established, he or she may engage in role
negotiation and maintenance.

Resocialization may occur in response to changes in the
member, such as the physical
changes associated with aging; changes in the organization,
such as the introduction of
new technology; or changes in the environment, such as
requests for the company to
engage in greener manufac-
turing processes. The member
may need to learn new skills,
such as online course man-
agement or a new statistical
analysis program, or increase
their productivity. Eventu-
ally, due to incompatibilities,
illness, or joining another
group, membership may end.
Both the individual and the
group may create accounts or
stories to explain this disjunc-
ture (“I wasn’t fired, I quit.”).
However, it is also possible for
membership to continue until
company or member relo-
cation, retirement, or death
brings the group relationship

6Group CohesivenessLearning ObjectivesWhat We Will.docx

6Group CohesivenessLearning ObjectivesWhat We Will.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 6Group CohesivenessLearning ObjectivesWhat We Will.docx

Similar to 6Group CohesivenessLearning ObjectivesWhat We Will.docx (20)

More from alinainglis

More from alinainglis (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

6Group CohesivenessLearning ObjectivesWhat We Will.docx