2. 1. Diversity in today’s workplace is a response to the need to
equalize job opportunities for
minorities. T/F
2. Diversity adds little to organizational performance; it is
simply a fact of life in the
contemporary workplace. T/F
3. Stereotypes are negative preconceptions we hold about other
team members. T/F
4. Diversity characteristics are readily observable. T/F
5. Assumed differences that are false are just as impactful as
actual diversity between
members. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Marni is a team leader at a large, international software
company. Her team is composed
of five other individuals who were each brought in from
different international offices. In
addition to their diverse personal backgrounds—in terms of
race, culture, and education
level—each member of the team was specifically recruited for
their particular KSAs.
Before they started working as a group, Marni took the time to
meet individually with
team members to gain insight into their background as well as
their skills and abilities.
She also gauged their work preferences—for example, what
types of projects they enjoy
and how they like to accomplish their work. When they were
3. ready to begin working
together, Marni introduced team members to each other,
highlighting their personal
experiences and skills. This helped clarify everyone’s value to
the group and made all
members feel equally important, despite the diversity of their
individual experiences and
KSAs.
Marni observed her team closely during their initial months
working together. She soon
became concerned over the number of interpersonal conflicts
occurring between team
members. While Marni attempted to diffuse these conflicts and
foster a more collabora-
tive environment, her efforts to set a positive example and
demonstrate effective conflict
resolution were not working. The team members continued to
struggle because of their
vast differences, both personal and KSA related.
Marni’s observations led her to believe that her teammates
lacked cross-cultural self-
efficacy, meaning they did not believe in their own ability to
interact with people from
other cultures. This perceived lack of ability was contributing to
the frequency of inter-
personal conflicts. Having identified what she thought was the
root cause of the problem,
Marni asked herself how she could make the team members
more confident in their own
cross-cultural abilities, as well as more comfortable with each
other.
After asking this question, it became obvious to Marni that her
team only interacted
5. Marni made these informal lunch gatherings a regular
occurrence. Over the months that
followed, she also developed opportunities for the team to work
off-site together. Slowly,
the interpersonal conflicts dissipated. Disagreements became
more constructive in nature
as the team members became more open to each other’s diverse
viewpoints.
Diversity plays a major role in today’s workplace. As of 2010
there were more than
39 million immigrants living in the United States, and 68% of
these actively participate
in the workforce (Grieco et al., 2012). Overseas, the highly
diverse population of South
Africa—increasingly popular as a business process outsourcing
location—has earned it
the epitaph of “Rainbow Nation” (Reichard, Dollwet, & Louw-
Potgieter, 2014). But what
does an increasingly diverse workforce mean for small groups,
teams, and organiza-
tions? It all depends on the type of diversity involved, and how
it is managed.
The effects of diversity are notoriously double-sided when it
comes to group and team
performance. Diversity of expertise and perspective enhance the
prime benefit of
working together—which is to combine material and human
resources. Yet diversity of
background and worldview also make it harder for group
members to understand each
other, which can potentially threaten their ability to work
together. In Chapter 4 we
explore workplace diversity from a contemporary viewpoint and
examine the different
6. effects of cultural and skill-based diversity. We also highlight
diversity challenges and
outline strategies for managing group diversity to achieve
positive outcomes.
4.1 Diversity: An Evolving Viewpoint
As we learned in Chapter 1, perceived similarities between
individuals are a major factor in
the group identification process. Still, no two group members
are truly identical. Diversity is
the degree of variation in group members’ qualities, interests,
and needs. Diversity can range
from very high—as in cross-functional, virtual, special project
teams brought together from
across a multinational organization—to very low—as in a group
gathered based on similari-
ties to test market reactions from a very specific client base.
Although groups with extremely
low diversity are labeled homogenous, all groups possess at
least some level of diversity.
With the ease of travel, the global reach of marketing and sales,
the omnipresence of online
communication and virtual groups, and an increasingly global
mindset among both individu-
als and organizations, diversity is a very real and influential
factor in our personal and profes-
sional lives. Diversity is more than a simple side effect of the
technological and social changes
associated with modernity, however. The United States has a
long (albeit complicated) history
as a diverse nation. Since the early 20th century, the term
melting pot has been used to
Section 4.1
8. diversity injected instant complexity and
increased potential for misunderstand-
ing and conflict in the workplace. This
spurred a movement of political correct-
ness in the 1980s and 1990s. Diversity
within organizations during these years
was predominantly focused on increasing
the numbers of individuals with specific
demographic characteristics and then
training people to skirt politely around
individual differences and their newly
diverse working conditions.
Today workplace diversity no longer centers on
antidiscrimination compliance. The new
focus for diversity in groups and teams revolves around the
variation in specific traits, skills,
experiences, and qualifications that can increase the
performance of a group in general or
on a specific project. This new focus came as a result of
contemporary organizations operat-
ing in a global work environment fueled by multinational
corporations. Following the eco-
nomic downturns at the start of the millennium and the collapse
of the U.S. housing bubble in
2007, organizations began positively transforming the need to
cut costs and downsize their
workforce. They employed the concept of rightsizing, or
functioning effectively with a smaller
employee base (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992; Manz &
Sims, 1987). Employee diversity
in traits, skills, experiences, and qualifications became critical
to enacting this concept. The
rise of groups and teams in organizations, and of teamwork-
centered practices, has given
diversity a new set of characteristics. While superficial
10. diversity in group member selection, team building, and
organizational hiring.
In the next section, we examine the case for diversity in the
workplace.
4.2 The Case for Workplace Diversity
Diversity is a key element in maintaining organizational
effectiveness. It engages new per-
spectives, enhances product and service development, and
positively or negatively impacts
employee interactions, productivity, satisfaction, and turnover,
as well as the ongoing devel-
opment of organizational learning and culture (Rašticová &
Senichev, 2011; Senichev, 2013a,
2013b). But how exactly does workplace diversity achieve all of
this? It does so by addressing
three core needs in contemporary organizations: developing
mutual understanding, maxi-
mizing human resources, and cultivating ability and innovation
(see Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1: Diversity and core organizational needs
Contemporary organizations look to diversity to address three
core needs.
Diversity
Developing
Mutual
Understanding
Cultivating
Adaptability &
12. between and within various groups, teams, organizational
departments, and levels
of hierarchy;
• identify and attract new markets and expand their customer or
client base;
• effectively serve, communicate, and interact with new and
existing customers and
clients; and
• engender fellowship among employees and clients alike and
build trust and loyalty
toward the organization; this can be achieved by internally
generating organiza-
tional cohesiveness via a corporate identity infused with team
spirit and externally
fostering customer loyalty and goodwill.
Maximizing Human Resources
In Chapter 1, we outlined the benefits of and tendency toward
efficiency or effectiveness in
work groups and teams. Of course, the best performance
outcomes occur when we break with
“either/or” thinking and find a balance between efficiency and
effectiveness. It is by realizing
their potential for achieving this balance that diverse groups
outperform homogenous ones.
One of the key advantages of working in groups is the potential
to access a broad scope of col-
lective KSAs and experience; indeed, this is the fundamental
concept behind the now popular
use of cross-functional teams. Today’s organizational strategies
call for making the most out
of a minimal workforce by capitalizing on a diverse range of
employee capabilities.
13. In cases that involve complex problem solving and decision
making, two heads really are bet-
ter than one. Diverse groups tend to generate more effective and
higher quality decisions and
solutions because they can access a wider range of relevant
knowledge, viewpoints, experi-
ence, and skills (Leonard, Levine, & Joshi, 2004). This also
mitigates group tendency toward
dysfunctional process behavior such as groupthink, which we
address in Chapter 5.
Cultivating Adaptability and Innovation
In nature, genetic diversity within a group—such as a herd of
elephants—is beneficial
because, in crisis, diverse groups are far more adaptable and
resilient than homogenous ones
(Senichev, 2013b; Kreitz, 2008). For example, a herd with a
diverse gene pool would have a
better chance of surviving a deadly hereditary disease than a
herd that lacked genetic diver-
sity. This adaptability and resilience gives the diverse group
stability. In this case stability
refers to more than the ability to maintain a status quo; rather, it
is the capacity to survive
and thrive amid changing conditions. The ability to adapt and
change is just as critical for
contemporary organizations. Diverse groups and teams have an
inherently broader range of
KSAs and experience to draw from in response to changing
circumstances.
As Indra Nooyi noted upon becoming chief executive officer
(CEO) of PepsiCo, people are an
organizations’ biggest asset (Aspen Institute, 2014). Great ideas
come from people. Diversifi-
15. inability to agree and collectively
commit to a specific course of action can delay the group’s
progress and lower individual
motivation and effort (Mello & Ruckes, 2006). The very
differences that broaden the group’s
capacity for adaptability, innovation, and effective performance
can act as a divisive force
and foster separation, miscommunication, and conflict between
team members (Harrison &
Klein, 2007; Polzer, 2008).
Group diversity is often portrayed as a double-edged sword
because it heightens the poten-
tial for significant gains and losses in the performance process
(Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007;
Pieterse et al., 2013). On the one hand, diverse perspectives
enhance an organization’s abil-
ity to identify opportunities; rethink and redefine business
strategies, practices, tasks, pro-
cesses, products, and services; and interact with both new and
existing markets (Agrawal,
2012). On the other hand, poorly managed diversity can stunt
developmental processes such
as identification and cohesion. This can lower employee
commitment and satisfaction and
decrease task-related process speeds, which impede the group’s
capacity for effective action
and response (Agrawal, 2012).
While diversity broadens the range of perspectives and
expertise, it also increases the poten-
tial for miscommunication and conflict between group members
(Agrawal, 2012). Dysfunc-
tional dynamics are often attributed to internal cognitive
barriers—or limiting preconcep-
tions such as stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination—that
17. motivation for many human behaviors (Pyszczynski, Solomon,
Greenberg, Arndt, &
Schimel, 2004).
Through shared social identity, we develop a sense of “us-ness”
that then dictates the bound-
ary between our in-groups and out-groups. The development of
an “us” and “them” mentality
invites comparison between in-groups and out-groups, and our
need for positive self-esteem
demands that we perceive our own groups as preferable. The
tendency to perceive the mem-
bers, products, and efforts of in-groups as relatively superior to
the members, products, and
efforts of out-groups is known as in-group-out-group bias. The
desire to champion our own
group can lead us to denigrate others, particularly when we
associate them with negative
stereotypes.
Stereotyping
Stereotypes represent conscious and unconscious beliefs about
the attributes of whole social
categories or groups and their individual members (Ashmore &
DelBoca, 1981; Jussim, Har-
ber, Crawford, Cain, & Cohen, 2005). When we stereotype, we
categorize. We take the people
or groups that we encounter and place them in a cognitive bin
with information about other
people whom we believe are similar in key respects, such as
educational level, occupation,
or age. People categorize all kinds of objects as a form of
cognitive economy; for example,
we might assume that a particular brand of toothpaste is pretty
much the same as another.
Stereotypes we hold regarding people, however, are much more
18. significant in that they can
profoundly impact our interactions.
While not all stereotypes are negative—such as the stereotype
that all Asians are good at
math—they are all limiting. When we stereotype, we see group
members as more alike than
they really are. Such stereotypes may be reinforced by focusing
on obvious similarities or by
attributing similarities without basis in fact. Within a specific
group or team, for example,
members who share obvious similarities such as gender, culture,
or ethnicity may be per-
ceived as similar even if their actual background or personality
traits are quite different.
When we engage in in stereotypical thinking we
deindividualize, and in some cases dehuman-
ize, the people around us.
When presented with information that runs contrary to existing
biases and stereotypes, peo-
ple may alter their generalizations, at least to some degree.
However, we are likely to defend
our stereotypes, claiming the contradictory information is the
exception to the rule (Jussim
et al., 2005). What’s more, our perception of others is often
more selective than accurate.
Expectations based on stereotypes can affect our perception of
other group members and
how we interpret what they say and do (Jost & Kruglanski,
2002). Studies on how teachers’
expectations affect their grading, for example, showed a distinct
variation in how a student
was evaluated based on whether the reviewers were told that she
came from a lower or
middle-class background (see Darley & Gross, 1983; Jussim,
20. of self and a legitimate
influence on our self-concept and self-esteem (Hogg, 2005).
• Maintaining positive self-esteem is a basic human need that
provides the underlying
motivation for many human behaviors (Pyszczynski, Solomon,
Greenberg, Arndt, &
Schimel, 2004).
Through shared social identity, we develop a sense of “us-ness”
that then dictates the bound-
ary between our in-groups and out-groups. The development of
an “us” and “them” mentality
invites comparison between in-groups and out-groups, and our
need for positive self-esteem
demands that we perceive our own groups as preferable. The
tendency to perceive the mem-
bers, products, and efforts of in-groups as relatively superior to
the members, products, and
efforts of out-groups is known as in-group-out-group bias. The
desire to champion our own
group can lead us to denigrate others, particularly when we
associate them with negative
stereotypes.
Stereotyping
Stereotypes represent conscious and unconscious beliefs about
the attributes of whole social
categories or groups and their individual members (Ashmore &
DelBoca, 1981; Jussim, Har-
ber, Crawford, Cain, & Cohen, 2005). When we stereotype, we
categorize. We take the people
or groups that we encounter and place them in a cognitive bin
with information about other
people whom we believe are similar in key respects, such as
educational level, occupation,
21. or age. People categorize all kinds of objects as a form of
cognitive economy; for example,
we might assume that a particular brand of toothpaste is pretty
much the same as another.
Stereotypes we hold regarding people, however, are much more
significant in that they can
profoundly impact our interactions.
While not all stereotypes are negative—such as the stereotype
that all Asians are good at
math—they are all limiting. When we stereotype, we see group
members as more alike than
they really are. Such stereotypes may be reinforced by focusing
on obvious similarities or by
attributing similarities without basis in fact. Within a specific
group or team, for example,
members who share obvious similarities such as gender, culture,
or ethnicity may be per-
ceived as similar even if their actual background or personality
traits are quite different.
When we engage in in stereotypical thinking we
deindividualize, and in some cases dehuman-
ize, the people around us.
When presented with information that runs contrary to existing
biases and stereotypes, peo-
ple may alter their generalizations, at least to some degree.
However, we are likely to defend
our stereotypes, claiming the contradictory information is the
exception to the rule (Jussim
et al., 2005). What’s more, our perception of others is often
more selective than accurate.
Expectations based on stereotypes can affect our perception of
other group members and
how we interpret what they say and do (Jost & Kruglanski,
2002). Studies on how teachers’
22. expectations affect their grading, for example, showed a distinct
variation in how a student
was evaluated based on whether the reviewers were told that she
came from a lower or
middle-class background (see Darley & Gross, 1983; Jussim,
1989; Williams, 1976). When we
hold conscious or unconscious stereotypes about other group
members, we often see what
we expect to see, ignore discrepancies, and selectively make
note of evidence that confirms
our stereotypical beliefs (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Jussim et al.,
2005).
Concepts in Action: Stereotypical Thinking
Based on appearance, which one of these individuals was the
head of a major American
automaker?
Answer: Both. That’s Mary Barra on the left and Dan Akerson
on the right. If you recognized
Barra or Akerson, this question might have seemed easy to you.
But look again, and be honest:
If you did not know who they were, what career choices would
you expect them to make—or
not make—based on the way they look?
Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images
for LinkedIn
Paul Warner/Getty Images
While stereotypes tend to flatten distinctions between members
of out-groups, they exagger-
ate differences between in-groups and out-groups. For instance,
members of a rival company
may be portrayed as particularly lazy or unethical, while
23. members of one’s own company are
automatically characterized as hard-working and ethical.
Denigrating those in the out-group
by emphasizing their differences and ignoring their similarities
with in-group members rein-
forces the idea that the out-group is inferior and bolsters the
solidarity and unity of those in
the in-group. When diverse members must work together,
however, this negative in-group-
out-group dynamic can seriously demoralize an entire group or
team. When negative stereo-
types move from expectation to prejudgment, prejudice and
discrimination occur.
Prejudice
Prejudice represents unjustified negative attitudes toward others
based solely on their mem-
bership in a particular group or subgroup. Prejudice sustains a
superior us versus inferior
them belief system that becomes ingrained in how we feel about
other people. When we dis-
like, take offense with, or exclude someone based on attributes
such as ethnicity, national-
ity, sexual orientation, or gender, we are engaging in prejudice.
Although in popular usage
ethnicity refers to differences in genetic background, the term
ethnic refers to any distinc-
tive characteristic held in common by a group of people,
including language, …
199
6Decision Making
25. problem framing is not an issue in
decision making.
4. Groupthink enables higher quality decision making in groups.
5. Group decision-making discussions tend to naturally expand
collective knowledge by
sharing little-known and expert information regarding the
decision problem.
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Molly, the head of human resources at a midsized publishing
company, is interested in
instituting work-from-home days for the organization’s
employees. She has worked at
other companies with successful work-from-home policies and
thinks a similar policy
might benefit her current organization. Molly must decide
whether to suggest instituting
the new policy at a company board meeting in 3 months’ time.
The issue is complex, and
she decides to assist her decision-making process by putting
together a small advisory
team to explore the idea from multiple angles and examine
variations on how such a
policy could be successfully implemented.
To this end, Molly selects seven people—four midlevel
managers and three profession-
als—to serve on the team, all from areas that will be affected by
the new policy if it is
adopted. Two of the managers (Tomas and Gerald) have been
with the company for
several years, and Molly has chosen them to participate in
26. groups and committees in the
past. One of the other managers, Casey, originally suggested the
idea of instituting work-
from-home days to Molly and is aware of her favorable view of
such policies. The other
four members of the team—the remaining manager (Jose) and
the three professionals
(Alicia, Hae, and Michael)—have never before been asked to
consider the establishment
of a company-wide policy and therefore feel honored they were
chosen to participate in
the process.
Having previously served in similar groups, Tomas and Gerald
immediately have valuable
input on how to organize team meetings, and they set
performance goals for the coming
weeks. Everybody is pleased and impressed with their obvious
experience and helpfulness,
and by the end of the first meeting, Tomas and Gerald have
emerged as the team’s natural
leaders. When they initiate discussion of the issue at the next
team meeting, Tomas and
Gerald immediately express their own preferences for how to
structure a work-from-home
policy. Having found that they are in agreement with each
other, they put up a united
front and dominate the discussion. Hae, Michael, and Jose all
show their support for
Tomas and Gerald’s ideas, as they want to appear involved and
do not want to create any
unnecessary conflict that might come from questioning leaders
who have thus far proved
knowledgeable. They feel privileged to be part of the group and
do not want to risk their
involvement by offering divergent opinions.
28. made by the team. Casey also makes an effort to speak with
other employees about a
work-from-home policy, but he keeps the more negative
comments and suggestions to
himself instead of sharing them with the group.
Molly periodically attends meetings to get a feel for what the
team members are discuss-
ing and to keep an eye on their progress. Although she simply
observes these meetings,
she has noticed some worrying dynamics. First, Tomas and
Gerald have apparently domi-
nated the team and are steering it in a single direction, without
really evaluating other
options. Molly notices that Casey’s input is uniformly positive,
and she wonders if the pre-
ferred option is getting any real critical analysis. Although
she’s not sure what happened
in the meetings she missed, Molly notes that Hae, Michael,
Jose, and Alicia rarely speak up
during meetings and never offer new or contradictory opinions.
Halfway to the decision
deadline, Molly steps in to see if she can help the team break
away from these negative
dynamics. She tells the team that she’d like to check in on what
they’ve come up with so
far by consulting with each member individually, then all
together as a group.
In the individual interviews, Molly draws out Alicia’s concerns,
finds out that Casey has
been biasing his input by only presenting positive information,
and learns that Tomas and
Gerald have been leading the team to explore only their own
initial suggestions. She also
learns that Hae, Michael, and Jose privately feel that Alicia was
29. treated poorly and wish
that the team had spent more time considering alternative
options. Each, however, feels
that they are alone in this view and that the majority of the
group is happy with Tomas
and Gerald’s leadership and their suggestions. In effect, the
team has a one-sided focus on
the positive aspects of a single policy.
In the group consultation, Molly allows the team members to
present their findings
together, and she praises them for their work so far. She then
gives them some construc-
tive feedback and direction for the second half of their
exploration process. She says she
has a good feel for the pros regarding the policy they have
explored but would like to
have at least two different alternatives to which to compare
them. She would also like
each member of the team to play devil’s advocate—which she
hopes will illuminate the
negatives of each policy option. She suggests that the team
assign different members to
explore each side of three distinct policies. As the team has
seven members, she suggests
that Casey continue as liaison to other company employees,
gathering both positive and
negative input to support his team. Molly says she’d like to see
their final presentation in
debate form, and she thanks the team members for their
invaluable input. She ends the
meeting by telling them that they are truly helping her make an
informed decision and
that if she goes to the board to suggest the new policy, she will
take a written presenta-
tion of their findings—and credit them to the team.
31. may decide to save money by bringing lunch to work instead of
buying it, or to seek recogni-
tion from your manager by volunteering for a special
assignment instead of keeping quiet. Of
course, we could just flip a coin, or choose one option over
another based on superficial fac-
tors. In such cases, however, the quality of the decision’s
outcome—our choice—is largely left
to chance. While this style of decision making is relatively
quick and easy, this strategy cannot
be relied on to consistently generate quality decisions.
At the most basic level, quality decisions depend on one’s
ability to acquire and use decision-
relevant knowledge to critically analyze and evaluate options.
This explanation is deceptively
simple, however. Acquiring and using decision-relevant
knowledge takes skill and effort.
Decision makers are not always gifted with the time or
resources to comprehensively inves-
tigate and evaluate decision options. Regardless of time,
however, a decision must still be
made. Next, we examine two distinctive approaches to
individual decision making, the rela-
tionship between these approaches, and the factors that
encourage decision makers to lean
more heavily toward one approach or the other.
Rational Versus Intuitive Decision Making
Individuals approach decision making on two distinct levels:
rational and intuitive. Rational
decision making is characterized by the use of critical thinking
and deductive reasoning to
make value-maximizing choices that satisfy the bounds of
situational constraints (Shafir &
LeBoeuf, 2002). Rational decision making is the aspect of
33. be unconsciously triggered
when we encounter stimuli that remind us of those past
experiences. When we intuitively feel
one option is better than another, we are unconsciously
accessing past experiences that share
some similarity with our current situation. In the case study that
heads the chapter, for exam-
ple, Alicia’s bad experience with a policy similar to the one
suggested by Tomas and Gerald
caused her to have an immediate negative reaction. Alicia could
be right in objecting to that
particular policy; however, good decision-making strategy
would call for her to back up her
intuitive response with a rational investigation of the potential
positive and negative aspects
of instituting that policy in a new setting. Effective decisions
tend to combine the best aspects
of the rational and intuitive approaches, supporting facts with
experience and vice versa.
Rational and intuitive decision making are both natural
extensions of basic learning; they
are survival mechanisms that enable us to better understand our
world, learn from previ-
ous experience, assess current situations for negativity or
danger, and respond appropriately.
Although all decisions represent some combination of rational
and intuitive decision making,
specific contexts may dictate the use of one or the other.
Individual decision makers tend to be
“rule followers” and as such match their decision-making
approach to situations as directed
by their occupational identities (March, 1994). Occupational
identities reflect internalized
performance, role, and behavioral expectations based on social
roles, status, occupational
34. habits, and internally and externally imposed rules and norms
(Kielhofner, 2002, 2008,
Phelan & Kinsella, 2009; Skorikov & Vondracek, 2011). They
provide the basic foundation for
one’s approach to decision making, the behavior and activities
regarded as appropriate and
necessary, and procedural rules and norms. An organization can
include employees who have
very different occupational identities.
As an example, consider a cost analyst and a graphic designer
who work for the same orga-
nization. The analyst examines the company’s costs and seeks
ways to improve operational
efficiency. The designer is responsible for product branding,
advertising, and packaging. Both
may work for the same organization, but their role expectations
and behaviors will be very
different. Cost analysts require a strong background in
accounting, for example, and are often
certified management accountants. Their job tasks demand
critical thinking and rational
decision making based on hard facts. Deviating from logically
proven patterns and proce-
dures is not the norm. Graphic designers, on the other hand,
require strong artistic ability and
may or may not be formally trained. They are expected to
engage in creative problem solving
and seek innovative solutions based on their unique personal
perspectives. While rational
decision making is part of this process, intuition is valued as
well. Both employees are valued
for their abilities, which they each integrate into their
occupational identity. The decision-
making approach associated with their job requirements, along
with its associated behaviors,
36. more effective. This becomes increasingly important as more
people are added to the mix and
the decision-making process becomes more complex. Next, we
examine the value of group
decision making.
The Value of Group Decision Making
Group decision making represents a social process wherein
group members generate a col-
lective decision outcome by integrating individual preferences
or proclivities for action and
response (Laughlin, 2011; Glynn & Barr, 2003). Although group
decision making is more com-
plex and time-consuming than individual decision making,
groups remain a standard tool for
effecting quality decisions across all levels of organizational
hierarchy (Stasser & Dietz-Uhler,
2001). The value in using groups for decision making comes
from their ability to pool relevant
KSAs in order to:
1. enhance the ability to critically analyze and evaluate
alternatives by sharing and vet-
ting information and expertise, testing members’ objectivity and
bias, and identify-
ing and addressing deficiency or errors in information and
assumptions; and
2. ground intuitive responses to specific alternatives by testing
individual expectations
and assumptions against those held by other group members.
As a result of these benefits, groups have an advantage over
individual decision makers
because:
37. • groups are better at coping with complexity (Vroom, 2003);
• groups tend to have a more accurate perceptions of people and
situations (Ruscher
& Hammer, 2006);
• groups can more rapidly seek out and find task-relevant
information (Lazonder,
2005); and
• groups tend to generate higher quality judgments, estimates,
and choices (Stasser &
Dietz-Uhler, 2001).
People who are involved in a decision-making process are also
more open to any attitude or
behavioral changes the decision may require (Lewin, 1943,
1951). Group decision making
is therefore a preferred method when the decision outcome will
introduce change to those
involved and for high-stakes decisions that require buy-in from
employees (such as imple-
menting new company-wide software or adopting a new
business practice).
As organizational environs have moved across virtual and
international boundaries, business
processes—and the decisions that fuel organizational progress
and health—have become
more complex. Groups are increasingly tasked with addressing
these issues, and group deci-
sion making occurs at every level of an organization. Table 6.1
shows the various types of
group decisions made at different organizational levels.
cog81769_06_c06_199-244.indd 204 8/19/16 9:34 AM
39. Decisions affect how
strategic decisions, policy,
and business processes are
carried out.
• Hiring, firing, and promotion decisions
• Individual job assignments
• Whether and how to use groups or teams
• Orchestrating organizational mandates
and initiatives
Work groups and teams Decisions pertain to task-
related problem solving and
coordinating group effort to
accomplish goals.
• Setting agendas and performance goals
• Delegating tasks and assigning roles
• Coordinating meetings and work
schedules
• Reaching agreement on how to frame a
problem and whether to select one option
or course of action over others
Decisions made within organizational groups often support one
another. As shown in Table
6.1, midlevel to lower level managers make decisions on how to
implement the organiza-
tional strategy or policy decisions made by top managers and
executives. For example, a new
policy decision from an organization’s leadership may call for
employee diversity training.
Before this can be implemented, however, several decisions
41. resale or redistribution.
Group Decision Making
Accessing
Resources
Defining
Individual
Preference
Decision
Implementation
Sensemaking
Decision
Integration
Individual Decision Making
Sensemaking Accessing
Resources
Defining
Individual
Preference
Decision
Implementation
Section 6.1 Decision Making: A Process Overview
As Figure 6.1 portrays, the steps that make up individual and
group decision making are nearly
42. identical. Consider the first stage as an example: In both cases,
sensemaking (described in the
next section) involves processes that enable us to “make sense”
of the decision problem and
our relative roles in solving it. It is the addition of social
interaction to each of the stages that
truly differentiates and defines the group decision process.
Although individual and group
decision making are often thought of as discrete processes, they
share a profound connection.
Group decision making involves integrating individual
preferences or proclivities for action
and response to generate a collective decision outcome that all
group members can accept and
support. Before this integration occurs, however, individual
members must come to their own
conclusions about potential options and articulate their
preference for a particular outcome.
In group decision making, individual preferences can be
influenced and changed via social
interaction and by accessing the total KSAs within the group.
Group decision outcomes
develop as members negotiate and coconstruct a shared
understanding of the problem, artic-
ulate decision-making needs and ways to address them, and
decide how to integrate indi-
vidual preferences and choices to generate an outcome that is
supported by the whole group
(Glynn & Barr, 2003). Effective decision making requires that:
• resources (including group member KSAs) are effectively
utilized;
• the decision outcome is produced in a timely manner and
within designated time
43. constraints;
• the decision outcome is able to garner support and be
successfully implemented;
Figure 6.1: Individual versus group decision making
Group decision making adds an additional step—decision
integration—to the individual decision-
making process.
Group Decision Making
Accessing
Resources
Defining
Individual
Preference
Decision
Implementation
Sensemaking
Decision
Integration
Individual Decision Making
Sensemaking Accessing
Resources
Defining
Individual
Preference
Decision
45. address the decision-making process. Sensemaking is the crucial
first step in individual and
group decision-making process. It familiarizes the group with
the decision problem via three
elements: framing the decision problem, addressing resource
requirements, and selecting a
mode of engagement.
Our opening case study illustrated how an individual decision
maker like Molly can augment
her decision-making process by getting help from a group. In
this case, individual and group
sensemaking were separate, yet entwined. Both Molly and her
advisory team had to deal
with the three elements of sensemaking—framing the decision
problem, addressing resource
requirements, and selecting a mode of engagement—in order to
progress through the pro-
cess. The following paragraphs examine these elements in more
depth.
Framing the Decision Problem
To generate a quality decision, it is essential that we gather
information on the decision con-
text and various options. It is also critical that we develop our
understanding of the nature of
the choice and the expectations associated with a successful
outcome. This aspect of sense-
making is known as framing the decision problem. In group
decision making, framing the deci-
sion problem also involves developing a shared understanding
regarding context, options, the
nature of the choice, and expectations surrounding the
collective decision outcome. As in any
kind of problem solving, problem framing can profoundly affect
the group’s decision-making
47. constitutes a yes or no answer?
Likewise, does “beneficial” to the organization simply mean
most easily implemented for
immediate gains within the existing organizational structure? Or
does it mean implementing
a plan that will, in the long term, overhaul most of the
organization’s existing …
163
5Problem Solving
monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Compare and contrast convergent and divergent thinking
styles, and the types of problems typically associ-
ated with each.
• Outline the advantages and primary pitfalls of group problem
solving.
• Explain the four stages of the group problem-solving process.
• Connect the seven steps of problem solving to the problem-
solving cycle and outline the importance of each
step.
• Describe strategies for managing creativity in group problem
solving.
cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 163 8/19/16 9:35 AM
49. will either have to solve the problem or restructure their
operations, which would include
decreasing the number of employees and scaling back their
support efforts and events.
After holding several meetings about the ongoing decline, the
board of directors and
administrators decide to establish a cross-functional team to
analyze and solve the prob-
lem. They select team members from finance and marketing, as
well as the directors of
annual giving, fund-raising, and volunteering. The members are
chosen not only because
of the departments with which they are associated, but also
because they have previously
worked together on other successful projects.
The team is tasked with finding a way to increase donations.
While the problem seems
straightforward at first, the team soon realizes the problem
itself can be interpreted in
different ways. For example, is this a problem of declining
support for the cause? Or of
ineffective marketing strategies? Or of faulty outreach
programs?
Marcus, the director of fund-raising, suggests they take the time
to conceptualize and
define the problem before attempting to solve it. To aid the
process, the team creates a
list of basic needs the problem represents. This list includes the
larger goal of increasing
donations to previous levels but also includes questions such as
why previous donors have
stopped contributing and how best to understand donor
motivations. The team must also
51. Marcus thinks the team is highly engaged in the ideation
process, and he is pleased that
most members regularly contribute ideas and effort. Gunnar, the
finance manager, is the
exception. He keeps relatively quiet at each meeting and has
only spoken once—when
asked whether he agreed with the team’s most recent suggestion
for a solution. Marcus
wonders if Gunnar’s lukewarm participation reflects his lack of
interest in the project, but
this seems unlikely, given Gunnar’s enthusiasm when the team
was defining the problem
and gathering data. This leads Marcus to believe that Gunnar,
who is the most junior-
ranking member of the team, might be concerned with how his
ideas will be evaluated by
the team’s more senior members. Marcus decides to speak to
Gunnar outside of a regular
meeting and encourages him to voice his ideas at the next team
meeting. Gunnar gradu-
ally begins to participate more by asking questions and offering
his opinion before the
team asks for it.
Over the following weeks, several more ideas, including a few
from Gunnar, are proposed
and evaluated. Eventually, the team reaches a consensus on a
solution and outlines its
implementation process. The solution and implementation plan
are presented to the
board of directors and administrators for their approval. Once
approved, the team moves
forward with implementing the solution. The initial phases of
implementation are carried
out successfully, and the team continues to carefully monitor
the impact of its solution on
52. the donations received by the organization.
Solving problems is a natural and necessary part of today’s
organizational process.
The prevalence of groups and teams as organizational work
units, and the connections
between innovation and teamwork, make group problem solving
a significant factor
in the success of contemporary organizations. Chapter 5
introduces the elements of
problem solving, outlines the advantages and challenges of
group problem solving, and
provides a detailed examination of the problem-solving process.
Finally, it examines the
relationship between creativity and group problem solving and
identifies techniques
and strategies for managing creativity in groups.
5.1 What Is Problem Solving?
Problem solving refers to the complex cognitive and physical
process of seeking a solution to
a problem or finding a path to a desired outcome or goal.
Problems represent unstructured or
inappropriately structured activities to which a solution and/or
the path to it have yet to be
made clear (Adejumo, Duimering, & Zhong, 2008).
Solution
s are options or alternatives that
resolve a problem, address a challenge, satisfy a need, or
answer a question (Isaksen, Dorval,
54. recognizing the familiar, and
reapplying set techniques (Cropley, 2006). Its cognitive
opposite, divergent thinking, is ori-
ented toward combining existing knowledge or frames of
reference in new or unexpected
ways to produce a potentially infinite set of solution options or
alternatives. Divergent thought
emphasizes variability, flexibility, and originality. The
divergent thought process focuses on
transforming information, recognizing or generating links
between remote frames of refer-
ence, and making innovative combinations. Table 5.1 outlines
the processes and results asso-
ciated with convergent and divergent thinking.
Table 5.1: Convergent versus divergent thinking
Type of thought Typical processes Typical results
Convergent • Being logical
• Recognizing the familiar
• Combining items with similar
characteristics
• Identifying a single best answer
55. • Reapplying set techniques
• Preserving acquired knowledge
• Achieving accuracy and
correctness
• Playing it safe
• Sticking to a limited range of
clearly relevant information
• Only making associations from
directly related fields
• Greater understanding of familiar
concepts
• Better grasp of the facts
• A quick, “correct” answer
• Specific, high-level expertise
• Closure on a particular issue
• A feeling of security and safety
Divergent • Being unconventional
• Seeing familiar concepts,
56. information, elements, and
processes in a new light
• Combining diverse concepts
• Producing multiple answers
• Shifting perspectives
• Transforming familiar ideas
• Seeing new possibilities
• Taking risks
• Using knowledge from a broad
range of disciplines
• Bringing together ideas from
separate and diverse fields
• Alternative or multiple solutions
• Deviating from tradition or the
“norm”
• Surprising answers
• New approaches
• Exciting or risky possibilities
• Feelings of uncertainty or
59. bakery selection. What about coffee types, available flavors,
and brewing methods? Maybe
best pertains to the ambiance, design, and comfort of the seating
arrangements and available
entertainment or describes the clientele. Each interpretation
opens a different set of possible
solutions, and it is likely that real-life interpretations of best
will encompass personal combi-
nations of any or all of these elements. This is the nature of
wicked problems.
Wicked problems, sometimes called ill-defined, are multilevel
problems that change accord-
ing to viewpoint. Before looking for a solution, these problems
often require the question to be
interpreted (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Farrell & Hooker, 2013).
For example, which interpreta-
tion of “best coffee shop” resonated for you? Depending on
your answer, the range of possible
solutions changes. Because they can be interpreted in many
different ways, wicked problems
have no definitively “right” answer, and no two people
addressing the problem separately are
likely to come up with the exact same solution. As both the
problem and what constitutes a
60. best solution are open for debate, solving wicked problems
typically involves constructive
conflict—allowing new ideas and interpretations to emerge.
Even when individuals or groups
address a wicked problem they have solved before, they are
likely to come up with an entirely
different solution the second time around.
Following their introduction by Rittel and Webber in 1973, the
concept of defined and wicked
problems was inducted into problem-solving research across
multiple fields. For some time
afterward, defined problems were associated with science and
logic, while wicked problems
were tied to creativity and design. Today complex problems are
viewed as neither concretely
defined nor wicked, but as a series of nested problems that fall
into an approximate position
on a sliding scale between the extremes of defined and wicked.
Complex problems almost
always require a dynamic mixture of convergent and divergent
thinking, as our critical-think-
ing skills inform and support our creative ideation abilities and
provide the basic foundation
for solution testing and critique (Rittel, 2010; Farrell & Hooker,
61. 2013).
Business Applications: Johnson & Johnson and Chicago PD Join
Forces to Fight Crime Using Convergent and Divergent
Thinking
Complex problems require a mixture of convergent and
divergent thinking. Consider John-
son & Johnson’s collaboration with the Chicago Police
Department to investigate and resolve
issues surrounding a series of deaths in the early 1980s that
became known as the Chicago
Tylenol murders (Basadur & Gelade, 2006; Emsley, 2008). This
was the scenario:
In September and October 1982, seven people from various
neighborhoods in Chicago died
suddenly after consuming Tylenol pain capsules, prompting the
police to issue urgent warnings
throughout the city. Initial investigations revealed that product
tampering after distribution
(continued)
cog81769_05_c05_163-198.indd 167 8/19/16 9:35 AM
63. intact to various supermarkets and drugstores. Johnson &
Johnson issued a national recall of
Tylenol products, halted Tylenol production and advertising,
and publicly warned hospitals,
distributors, and individuals of the potential danger. The
company’s market shares collapsed
from 35% to 8% during this time.
Heavily invested in solving the problem for both public and
organizational welfare, Johnson &
Johnson joined the ongoing investigation, establishing relations
with the Chicago police, the
FBI, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Working together to quickly assemble
and analyze the facts, they determined that only liquid capsule
products containing acetamin-
ophen had been tampered with. This narrowed the danger
considerably and helped reassure
a panicking populace. Johnson & Johnson offered to exchange
any capsules already purchased
for solid tablet forms. While the investigation was still ongoing,
Johnson & Johnson’s design
teams began pioneering an innovative tamperproof packaging
that has since been adopted
industry-wide. By November the newly packaged products hit
64. the shelves. The media lauded
Johnson & Johnson’s handling of the crisis (Knight, 1982), and
the company’s stock rebounded
in less than a year.
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. Which type of problem—defined or wicked—and problem-
solving style does the state-
ment below imply? Use the information from what you have
read to support your
answer.
Working together to quickly assemble and analyze the facts,
they determined that only liq-
uid capsule products containing acetaminophen had been
tampered with.
2. How did Johnson & Johnson use a mixture of divergent and
convergent thinking to solve
the problem of its collapsing market share?
Business Applications: Johnson & Johnson and Chicago PD Join
Forces to Fight Crime Using Convergent and Divergent
Thinking
66. These are the primary benefits of group interaction. In a well-
functioning group or team,
these conditions give groups an advantage over individuals for
complex problem solving.
Sharing Assets and Resources
If a problem is complex enough to warrant a group or team,
solving it will likely call for a
range of KSAs. For this reason, problem-solving groups often
outperform even individuals
with superlative skills or capability (Kerr & Tindale, 2004;
Laughlin et al., 2003). Variation
in member KSAs can be a highly valuable form of group
diversity. Even if members possess
the same or similar KSAs, they will vary in their degree of
knowledge or achievement and
their ability to use their KSAs in collaboration with others or in
the context of the problem
at hand. All of a group’s members, for example, may know how
to use applications like Excel
and PowerPoint; however, some may be particularly proficient,
able to work more quickly
within them, have technical knowledge of shortcuts or fixes, or
have KSAs that enable them to
put together a more visually pleasing presentation than others in
67. the group. Likewise, some
members may be particularly talented public speakers, be
skilled at giving presentations,
know how to explain a complex concept, excel at outlining
arguments, or be very persuasive.
Groups that can effectively coordinate their members’ range of
KSAs and plug them into the
areas or situations where they are most needed have a distinct
advantage over individuals,
who must work with just one set of KSAs.
Groups enable us to move beyond individual limitations in other
ways, too. Just as work-
ing with others can help us perform more physical labor than we
could accomplish working
alone, groups enable us to carry heavier mental loads. An
individual’s capacity to process and
recall information is finite. The working memory of the human
brain is only capable of focus-
ing on five to nine items (thoughts, ideas, solutions, and so on)
at any given moment (Miller,
1956). Beyond the upper limit of this range, the brain must
begin to let some things go. How-
ever, once ideas or information have been shared, they become
part of the group’s collective
69. solution space represents
all the ideas and solutions that can potentially lead us to a
desirable outcome. Unfortunately,
studies have shown that when it comes to solving complex
problems, most of us tend to over-
look 70% to 80% of our solution space (Gettys, Pliske,
Manning, & Casey, 1987; Connolly,
Routhieaux, & Schneider, 1993). This is because we have a
tendency to think within familiar
and relatively narrow bounds when faced with large or complex
problems; we typically fall
back on previous ideas and perspectives, especially those that
have worked well in the past
(Amabile, 1990, 1998; Santanen, Briggs, & de Vreede, 2004).
Ironically, it is in solving complex
problems that we most need access to a large and diverse
solution space. By sharing diverse
knowledge, expertise, and experience, groups increase their
access to the problem’s solu-
tion space. Even if individual members are inclined to repeat
past ideas and perspectives,
the diversity of the group will tend to correct this by offering
greater variety regarding past
experiences.
70. Creativity is thought to arise from the juxtaposition, or bringing
together in a given context, an
association of frames of reference previously thought to be
incompatible (Benedek, Konen, &
Neubauer, 2012). Working in groups increases our potential to
juxtapose different ideas,
viewpoints, and frames of reference to come up with new
combinations and innovative solu-
tions (Nicholas, Paulus, & Choi, 2011; Milliken, Bartel, &
Kurtzberg, 2003). Groups think more
creatively when diverse knowledge and perspectives intersect,
as they do in a properly func-
tioning problem-solving team.
Consider the creative solution devel-
oped by the team assigned to
increasing sales in Tesco’s South
Korean supermarket chain, Home
Plus (“Tesco,” 2011). Researching
the company’s clientele, the Tesco
team discovered that dense traffic,
impacted schedules, and propen-
sity to ride commuter trains made
it difficult for South Korean shop-
pers to get to and from the market-
71. place. However, the team also knew
that browsing real aisles with actual
products was easier, more immedi-
ately gratifying, and more likely to
foster impulse shopping than pains-
takingly searching for specific items
listed on a website and waiting days
for a delivery.
The Tesco team’s solution was to jux-
tapose the disparate frames of the
online and brick-and-mortar marketplace. The team placed large
wall panels and kiosks on
subway platforms and terminals, each of which displayed
realistic, life-size photos of food
and store items. Customers could simply photograph the items
they wanted and pay for them
online. The whole transaction could be handled by cell phone
while waiting for a train. With a
Paul Brown/Rex Features via AP Images
Under its local brand name Home Plus, supermarket
Tesco launched virtual shops in South Korea’s
subways that enable time-strapped commuters to
73. Eugen Semmer was the first to
report the effects of penicillin—almost 60 years before
Alexander Fleming published his own
discovery of the substance in 1929 (Chemical Heritage
Foundation, 2010a; Cropley, 2006).
In 1870 Semmer published an article in a well-known German
science journal, outlining
the bizarre return to health of infected horses after their
accidental exposure to Penicillium
notatum fungus spores. Unfortunately for both Semmer and the
world, his work centered on
exploring disease fatality rather than curative factors.
Semmer saw the fungus as a problem—to be eliminated so his
studies could progress—
rather than a puzzle that, if solved, would forever change the
treatment of disease in both
animals and humans. Oops! Alternate knowledge and
perspectives would have been really
helpful there. Interestingly, Fleming also spent 12 years
completely focused on the antiseptic
properties of penicillin as a treatment for surface infections and
wounds (Chemical Heritage
Foundation, 2010a). It took an interdisciplinary team to realize
penicillin’s potential for treat-
74. ing internal infections and disease (Chemical Heritage
Foundation, 2010b).
Discussing ideas within the group and “talking out” possible
solutions also enhances our abil-
ity to effectively communicate an idea or solution to those who
must implement it. Problems
or failures in the implementation stage can often be traced to
communication or comprehen-
sion failures between those who generate a solution and those
who apply it. Group members
who are expected both to generate and implement an outcome
typically have a more com-
prehensive and accurate understanding of what needs to be done
and why than individuals
who are simply assigned to implementation by someone else. Of
course, in an organizational
setting, there are often more people involved with implementing
a solution than those who
participated in its generation. Here again, the group process has
advantages over the individ-
ual; simply by engaging in the problem-solving process
together, the group develops clear and
effective communication about the nature and needs of the
outcome and its implementation.
76. Now that we understand the advantages of problem solving in
groups, let’s look at some of
the pitfalls of group problem solving.
Primary Pitfalls in Group Problem Solving
When addressing a complex problem, most problem-solving
groups will outperform even the
most skilled, knowledgeable, and capable individuals (Kerr &
Tindale, 2004; Laughlin et al.,
2002, 2003). However, groups are vulnerable to process loss
due to dysfunctional interaction
dynamics between members. Engaging a problem as a group or
team requires collaboration
Before the initial explosion, the Apollo 13 crew had been
following a preplanned course to land
on the moon. Now, however, they needed to get into a free-
return trajectory toward Earth,
using navigational equipment they manually appropriated from
the failing command module.
However, the damage from the initial explosion had also
compromised the computerized navi-
gation equipment, and ground control had to quickly create and
test unique procedures for
altitude and course corrections using the sun as a navigation
77. point.
Consumables were also a problem. Oxygen was sufficient for
the projected 90-hour return
flight, but power and water had to be scrounged and rigidly
conserved. Intended to support
only two crew members for 24 hours, the LM struggled to
accommodate the three-person
crew. Thirty-six hours into the crisis, carbon dioxide levels
went critical. The crew needed to
use filtration canisters salvaged from the command module, but
they were the wrong shape
for the LM. Under a critical time crunch, Houston quickly
assembled a cross-functional task
force to devise a solution using plastic bags, cardboard, and
tape—the only materials available
to the Apollo 13 crew—in order …
77
3Interpersonal Relations, Communication, and Group
Effectiveness
78. Stocktrek Images/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
• Describe interpersonal skills and their importance in the
workplace.
• Explain how our basic interpersonal relations skill set is
formed and describe methods for further
development.
• Identify and describe the major elements of the
communication process.
• Identify the major communication flows in an organization
and the type of information associated with each.
• Identify and describe three significant models of
communication.
• Outline the basic obstacles to effective communication and
strategies for overcoming them.
• Describe the relationship between positive interdependence
80. you are born with. T/F
4. One of greatest challenges to communicating effectively lies
in how both the sender and
receiver filter the content of a message. T/F
5. In teams, members pool their KSAs through mass exchange
or information capture. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Bexco is a small engineering firm that takes a team-based
approach to the work environ-
ment. At Bexco, a team composed of five engineers has worked
together for a little over
2 years. About 6 months ago, the team’s manager informed the
team members that he
had hired a new engineer to join their team. Team members
received this news well, and
they have spent the past 4 months adjusting to and training their
new team member,
Erik. During this time, team members have all worked with Erik
in some capacity and
have all experienced the same problem—Erik has trouble
communicating with others.
81. The team is decentralized, meaning that all members share
leadership and task roles and
communicate directly with each other. There is no single leader
through which to fun-
nel communications, which allows members to easily share their
knowledge and view-
points. This has allowed the team to enjoy uninhibited
communication and collaboration.
Although the team members have demonstrated the way their
communication network
functions and have encouraged Erik to communicate directly
with his team, Erik contin-
ues to direct his communications toward the team’s supervisor
rather than to his fellow
team members. When Erik communicates with his team through
the supervisor, he limits
his ability to influence the team and its ability to influence him,
which inhibits relation-
ships. Additionally, when he does communicate with team
members directly, his messages
are often unclear and his colleagues cannot determine their
meaning or the importance
of the information. His communications typically contain
important information but lack
83. Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
Whether we are employees, managers, part of a work group, or
on a team, working
together requires cooperation, coordination, and social
interaction. Given adequate
technical skills and material resources, effective performance
largely depends on prop-
erly using essential interpersonal skills (Klein, DeRouin, &
Salas, 2006). Effective teams
are characterized by using interpersonal skills to facilitate:
• sharing knowledge and viewpoints,
• identifying problems (by voicing concerns),
• solving problems and making decisions, and
• resolving both task- and team-related conflicts in collaborative
ways (Cannon-
Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995; Stevens &
Campion 1994; Varney, 1989).
These processes are too complex to address in a single chapter.
Problem solving, deci-
sion making, and conflict management are individually dealt
with later in the text. In this
84. chapter, we define and discuss the interpersonal relations skill
set, examine interpersonal
behaviors and skills relating to communication, and explore
their impact on performance.
3.1 Interpersonal Relations: Soft Skills, Hard Value
Interpersonal skills, or people skills, refer to a complex skill set
that encompasses KSAs and
behaviors that enhance the quality of our interpersonal
interactions (Cannon-Bowers et al.,
1995). Interpersonal skills and the ability to work
constructively in groups and teams top the
list of the most valuable skill areas for job seekers, interns,
employees, and managers at all
levels and across virtually any operational setting, from
accounting to the armed forces (Mun-
son, Phillips, Clark, & Mueller-Hanson, 2004; Klein et al.,
2006). Everybody wants interper-
sonal skills, but nobody seems to know exactly where they come
from, what they are, or how
to get them.
Where Do Interpersonal
Skills Come From?
As with skills of any type, interper-
85. sonal skills can be learned, prac-
ticed, and developed over time. We
can consciously begin the process
of honing these skills at any point in
our lives and across any setting, pri-
vate or professional. However, most
of us develop an unconscious level
of competency in interpersonal skills
simply by living and interacting with
others over the course of our life-
time. Humans are social by nature,
and from our earliest moments, most
of us try to communicate with those
around us via eye contact, facial
expressions, body language, and
KIM JAE-HWAN/Staff/GettyImages
Today U.S. Marines receive special training in people
skills and social interaction before going on overseas
duty assignments.
Section 3.1
cog81769_03_c03_077-124.indd 79 8/19/16 9:36 AM
87. rapid development and fre-
quent changes in employee roles, interdependence, expectations,
and demands. Today’s
reliance on technology-assisted communication, online project
management, and virtual
teamwork add an extra dimension of complexity to an already
multidimensional process.
Consider the difficulty of communicating emotional nuance and
tone such as shared enthu-
siasm, attentiveness, teasing, or sympathetic encouragement via
text or e-mail. The limited
ability to translate traditional interpersonal behaviors and social
cues via technology make
the development of interpersonal skills even more important for
effective communication,
coordination, and cooperation in the contemporary workplace
(Caya, Mortensen, & Pinson-
neault, 2013; Kimble, 2011).
Prior to the use of interpersonal skills as an umbrella term for
the KSAs and behaviors we
use to navigate and manage our interpersonal interactions,
theorists approached this field of
study with a “divide and conquer” approach. Formal and
informal theories evolved, defining
88. our ability to relate to others as social or emotional intelligence
and connecting our level of
intelligence with specific personality traits. Contemporary
thought regarding the identifica-
tion and application of interpersonal skills grew out of this
early theory work (Landy, 2005),
and the multiple dimensions of intelligence and personality
represent factors that can poten-
tially influence our ability to acquire and effectively utilize
interpersonal skills. In the follow-
ing sections, we examine different facets of intelligence and
personality and their relationship
to interpersonal skills. Let’s begin with social and emotional
intelligence.
Social and Emotional Intelligence
Long before interpersonal skills, member attachment styles, or
social value orientation were
considered significant elements of organizational behavior, E.
L. Thorndike (1920) intro-
duced the idea of social intelligence. Thorndike’s discussion
was more a call to recognize
multiple forms of intelligence than a serious investigation into
interpersonal competencies;
however, it did open the doors on this area of study and
90. • Social insight: the ability to meaningfully connect emotional
and behavioral cues
within a given context and to understand why we or others feel
and behave in a par-
ticular way.
• Communicative competence: the ability to accurately
understand and interpret
verbal and nonverbal messages from others and strategically
control the messages
we send in return (Canale & Swain, 1980).
In action, social intelligence translates into social skill, or the
ability to effectively read, com-
prehend, and manage social interactions (Witt & Ferris, 2003).
Social skill allows us to trans-
late goals and intentions into goal-directed, socially effective
behavior (Schneider, Ackerman,
& Kanfer, 1996; Schneider, Roberts, & Heggestad, 2002).
The idea that human intelligence has not one but multiple
dimensions inspired some research-
ers to focus on our cognitive ability to perceive, express, and
manage emotion (Gardner, 1983,
1999; Williams & Sternberg, 1988). Emotional intelligence (EI)
