Groups & Leadership


Published on

The aim of this undergraduate social psychology lecture is to introduce and discuss the psychology of groups and leadership.

Published in: Education, Technology
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The aim of this social psychology lecture is to introduce and discuss the psychology of groups and leadership. Image source: License: Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 L Author: Autorizzazione Massimo Morini Promotion Laflotta - .
  • Groups & Leadership

    1. 1. Social Psychology <ul><ul><li>Groups & Leadership </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lecturer: James Neill </li></ul></ul>
    2. 2. Overview: Pt 1 (Groups) <ul><li>Questions about groups </li></ul><ul><li>What is a group? </li></ul><ul><li>Groups, roles, and selves </li></ul><ul><li>Group action </li></ul><ul><li>How groups think </li></ul><ul><li>Group decision making </li></ul><ul><li>Effects of groups on individuals </li></ul><ul><li>Social facilitation </li></ul><ul><li>Hawthorne effect </li></ul><ul><li>Social loafing </li></ul><ul><li>Intergroup conflict </li></ul><ul><li>Co-operation between groups </li></ul><ul><li>Self-categorisation theory </li></ul><ul><li>Social categorisation theory </li></ul><ul><li>Reading </li></ul><ul><li>Baumeister & Bushman (2008): </li></ul><ul><li>Ch14: Groups </li></ul>
    3. 3. Questions about groups <ul><li>Is group behaviour different to the behaviour of individuals? </li></ul><ul><li>Do groups make better or worse decisions than individuals? </li></ul><ul><li>Why do groups conflict? </li></ul>
    4. 4. What is a group? <ul><li>How would you define a (social) group? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the minimal criteria for a group? </li></ul>
    5. 5. What is a group? <ul><li>2 or more people </li></ul><ul><li>“doing or being something together” </li></ul><ul><li>Group members: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Feel similar </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Share a common identity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Work towards a common goal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are distinguished from outgroup(s) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Depend on each other </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. What is a group? <ul><li>“ A collection of people, usually people who are doing or being something together.” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 480) </li></ul>
    7. 7. What is a group? <ul><li>“ two or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition” (Vaughan & Hogg, 2002, p. 200) </li></ul>
    8. 8. What is a group? <ul><li>interact with one another </li></ul><ul><li>accept rights & obligations </li></ul><ul><li>share a common identity . </li></ul><ul><li>A collection of people who: </li></ul>
    9. 9. What is a group? <ul><li>Criteria: </li></ul><ul><li>2 or more persons </li></ul><ul><li>formal social structure </li></ul><ul><li>common fate </li></ul><ul><li>common goals </li></ul><ul><li>interdependence </li></ul><ul><li>self-define as group members </li></ul><ul><li>recognition by others </li></ul>
    10. 10. Why groups? <ul><ul><li>Groups are favoured by evolution: </li></ul></ul><ul><li>If individuals compete against groups… </li></ul><ul><li>Humans always live in small groups </li></ul><ul><li>Groups are essential to culture </li></ul>
    11. 11. Advantages of animal groups <ul><li>Safety in numbers </li></ul><ul><li>Vigilance: even if just one spots the danger, or opportunity </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing resources </li></ul><ul><li>Working together,  s power </li></ul>
    12. 12. Advantages of human groups <ul><li>Role differentiation & division of labour </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Everything is done by experts e.g., assembly lines </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Accumulation of knowledge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transmit to next generation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Economic exchange </li></ul>
    13. 13. Advantages of human groups <ul><li>In human evolution: </li></ul><ul><li>Safety in numbers </li></ul><ul><li>Help others find food </li></ul><ul><li>Accomplish tasks that are too difficult for the individual </li></ul>
    14. 14. Studying groups <ul><li>The whole (group) can be more than the sum of its parts </li></ul><ul><li>But sometimes it is much less </li></ul><ul><li>Hence one challenge for social psychologists: Understand the advantages and disadvantages of group process </li></ul>
    15. 15. Social facilitation <ul><li>The tendency to perform well when others are present </li></ul><ul><li>Classic study by Triplett (1897): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Noticed that bicycle racers usually made better times in group competition than alone. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Children wind string on a fishing reel faster when working with others present </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Social facilitation <ul><li>But sometimes the presence of others makes performance worse (social inhibition) </li></ul><ul><li>Zajonc noticed that the presence of others is arousing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Arousal has been known to enhance the dominant response </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Facilitation vs. loafing <ul><li>Social facilitation is found in many animals </li></ul><ul><li>Social loafing is uniquely human </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If people are not held responsible, they will not contribute to the group </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People are naturally inclined to notice and punish social loafers and cheaters </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Social Facilitation Theory <ul><li>Mere presence of others is arousing, which facilitates the “dominant response”. Hence, for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Familiar tasks : dominant response is success, so this  s when others are present </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unfamiliar tasks : dominant response is failure, so this too  s when others are present </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Same for other kinds of dominant response e.g., talkers talk more, silent types clam up more </li></ul>
    19. 19. Yerkes-Dodson Law Arousal Performance Optimal arousal: Difficult task Optimal arousal: Easy task
    20. 20. Zajonc’s Drive Theory of Social Facilitation (1965) Presence of others Arousal  in performing dominant responses If correct If incorrect Social facilitation Social inhibition Mere physical presence of others leads to arousal, motivating performance of dominant response (best learned, most habitual).
    21. 21. Social Facilitation <ul><li>In a social situation, would a violinist perform a: </li></ul><ul><li>well-rehearsed piece well? </li></ul><ul><li>difficult piece poorly? </li></ul>
    22. 22. Fig. 14-2, p. 487
    23. 23. Social Facilitation Theory <ul><li>Zajonc et al. (1969) got cockroaches to run down a clear tube towards a light: </li></ul><ul><li>They ran faster when watched by other cockroaches. </li></ul><ul><li>When put in a simple maze, it took them longer when they were being watched. </li></ul>
    24. 24. Pool Hall Study (Michaels et al., 1982): Novice 30% Expert 70% % of shots made
    25. 25. Why does this happen? <ul><li>Evaluation apprehension – concern about being judged </li></ul><ul><li>Apprehension about evaluation  arousal   d drive & social facilitation </li></ul><ul><li>e.g., Schmitt et al. (1986) </li></ul>
    26. 26. Evaluation Apprehension Model (Cottrell, 1972) Experimental Condition Time taken (seconds) Alone Mere presence Evaluation apprehension 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75        Easy task Difficult task
    27. 27. Distraction-conflict theory (Baron, 1986; Sanders, 1983) <ul><li>Conflict occurs when person simultaneously pays attention to task & others </li></ul><ul><li>Conflict  arousal   d drive & social facilitation </li></ul><ul><li>e.g., Sanders, Baron & Moore (1978) </li></ul>
    28. 28. Distraction-conflict theory Individual performing a task Presence of audience or coactors Tendency to pay attention to task Tendency to pay attention to audience or coactors Attentional conflict  d arousal/drive Social facilitation effects
    29. 29. Distraction: Drive/Conflict Theory of Social Facilitation <ul><li>The act of showing people you are interested in them usually spurs them to better job performance. </li></ul><ul><li>Also known as the ‘Somebody upstairs cares’ syndrome. </li></ul><ul><li>This was a tremendous break from the idea that industrial man was motivated by economic means only. </li></ul>
    30. 30. The Hawthorne Effect People who know that they are being observed modify their behavior not only consciously but also unconsciously .
    31. 31. Social loafing <ul><li>People often  effort when working in a group. </li></ul><ul><li>Ringlemann (1913) - less effort per person exerted when rope pulling in a group vs. alone. </li></ul><ul><li>Latane, Williams & Harkins (1979) - performance  d as group size  d. </li></ul>
    32. 32. “ Tug of War” Study (Ringelmann) <ul><li>Alone - pulled ~ 85 kg / person </li></ul><ul><li>In groups – pulled </li></ul><ul><li>~ 61-65 kg / person </li></ul>
    33. 33. <ul><li>A reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task compared to working alone. </li></ul><ul><li>Coordination loss - losses of productivity due to problems of coordinating individual members </li></ul><ul><li>Motivation loss - losses due to  s in individual members’ motivation </li></ul>Social loafing
    34. 34. Reduction in volume of individual shout in 2-person & 6-person real & pseudo-groups 0 20 40 60 80 100 Group size (persons) Percentage reduction in individual shout 1 2 3 4 5 6        Real groups Pseudo groups ………………………………… .. Potential performance Coordination loss Motivation loss,  d effort, social loafing
    35. 35. Social loafing <ul><li>Factors: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not individually identifiable or accountable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not wanting to be a ‘sucker’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bad apple effect </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Countering: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>When one’s cooperation is unique to the group, less likely to loaf. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying people in groups & holding them accountable produces better results. </li></ul></ul>
    36. 36. Why does social loafing occur? <ul><li>Output equity </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation apprehension </li></ul><ul><li>Matching to standard </li></ul><ul><li>Diffusion of individual responsibility as group size  s (Latane, 1981). </li></ul>
    37. 37. Collective Effort Model (CEM) (Karau & Williams, 1993) <ul><li>Links between individual’s efforts & their outcomes weaker when working with others in a group. </li></ul>
    38. 38. Collective Effort Model (CEM) <ul><li>Individuals work hard on a task when: </li></ul><ul><li>1. Believe working hard will lead to a better performance </li></ul><ul><li>2. Believe better performance will be recognised & rewarded </li></ul><ul><li>3. Rewards are ones they value & desire </li></ul>
    39. 39. Ways to  social loafing <ul><li>Increase: </li></ul><ul><li>identifiability </li></ul><ul><li>value of task </li></ul><ul><li>uniqueness of contributions </li></ul><ul><li>group cohesiveness </li></ul><ul><li>identification with the group (e.g., Holt, 1987) </li></ul>
    40. 40. Diverse Groups <ul><li>Can be more creative & flexible. </li></ul><ul><li>Better chance of bringing in different information. </li></ul><ul><li>Can be harder to cooperate & work together. </li></ul>
    41. 41. Roles <ul><li>Complementary roles produce better results than having each member do the same thing. </li></ul><ul><li>Human roles work in the context of large systems where most people do different things. </li></ul>
    42. 42. Roles <ul><li>In fascist movements individual self-interest is subordinated to the interests of the group. </li></ul><ul><li>Roles are defined by the system; exist independent of the person in that role. </li></ul><ul><li>People need to be flexible to take on & drop roles. </li></ul>
    43. 43. Optimal Distinctiveness Theory <ul><li>Tension between the need to be: </li></ul><ul><li>similar to, and </li></ul><ul><li>distinctive from other group members. </li></ul>
    44. 44. Altruistic Punishment <ul><li>People will sometimes sacrifice their own gain, to benefit all, by punishing cheaters & free riders </li></ul><ul><li>May be considered guarding the culture </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Culture depends on a system; cheat the system, ruin it for all </li></ul></ul>
    45. 45. Deindividuation <ul><li>Loss of self-awareness & evaluation apprehension </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Occurs more in situations which favour expression of group norms </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Can lead to antisocial behavior: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>being anonymous makes people more willing to violate norms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stop worrying about what others think </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Accountability is best predictor of aggression </li></ul>
    46. 46. Trick or Treat Study % Who took extra
    47. 47. <ul><li>Two conditions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hoods & white coats </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wore large name tags </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Asked them to deliver shocks </li></ul><ul><li>Gave longer shocks when anonymous </li></ul>Zimbardo “hood” study (1970)
    48. 48. Social cooperation dilemmas <ul><li>Social Dilemmas - situation in which most rewarding short-term choice for individual causes negative consequences for group as a whole </li></ul><ul><li>Commons Dilemma - if all cooperate, all gain; if all compete, all lose </li></ul>
    49. 49. Social dilemmas & inter-group cooperation <ul><li>Lack of care </li></ul><ul><li>Squandering shared resources </li></ul><ul><li>Inequality </li></ul><ul><li>Ambition & greed </li></ul>Communal Private
    50. 50. Problems with private vs. communal ownership <ul><li>Dilemmas: </li></ul><ul><li>Social conscience vs. selfish impulse </li></ul><ul><li>Time (Now vs. tomorrow) </li></ul><ul><li>Factors influencing outcome: </li></ul><ul><li>Communication </li></ul><ul><li>Behaviour of others </li></ul>
    51. 51. The tragedy of the commons <ul><li>A type of social trap , often economic, that involves a conflict over resources between individual interests and the common good . </li></ul>
    52. 52. The prisoner’s dilemma 5 years each A free B 10 years A Betrays A 10 years B free 6 months each A Stays Silent B Betrays B Stays Silent
    53. 54. <ul><li>1. Cooperation  s as conflict between own & others’ interests  s </li></ul><ul><li>2. Cooperation  s as rewards for coop  </li></ul><ul><li>3. Communication  s cooperation </li></ul><ul><li>4. Cooperation  s when players know each other </li></ul><ul><li>5. More likely to cooperate with ingroup members </li></ul><ul><li>6.  d no. of participants leads to  d conflict </li></ul><ul><li>7. Initial social value orientation - competitive vs. cooperative </li></ul>Factors influencing cooperation in these games
    54. 55. Criticisms of dilemma games <ul><li>Assumes individuals are rational, motivated to maximise self-interest </li></ul><ul><li>Lack ecological/external validity </li></ul><ul><li>Are they about intergroup cooperation? </li></ul>
    55. 56. Rejection by groups <ul><li>Rejection by groups has more impact than acceptance </li></ul><ul><li>Rejected experience drop in self-esteem </li></ul>
    56. 57. Group decision-making <ul><li>Brainstorming </li></ul><ul><li>Group polarisation </li></ul><ul><li>Groupthink </li></ul>
    57. 58. Thinking in groups <ul><li>The pooling of information has many benefits for groups and for culture </li></ul><ul><li>Sometimes groups can be smarter than individuals, even smarter than experts </li></ul><ul><li>But sometimes groups can be incredibly stupid </li></ul>
    58. 59. Are groups smart? <ul><li>Brainstorming: Originated in ad agencies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>People generate ideas together </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interactive stimulation of creative energy </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Intuitively appealing </li></ul><ul><li>Exciting, enjoyable </li></ul><ul><li>But not creative: less quality and quantity than working alone </li></ul>
    59. 60. Are groups smart? <ul><li>“ Wisdom of crowds:” pooled group information is often superior to single judgments </li></ul><ul><li>Stock market </li></ul><ul><li>Betting lines on sports events </li></ul><ul><li>Polling </li></ul>
    60. 61. Are groups smart? <ul><li>“ Wisdom of crowds” works if… </li></ul><ul><li>Diversity of opinion </li></ul><ul><li>Independent thought process and judgment (instead of pressure to conform) </li></ul><ul><li>Pooled information, central ‘clearinghouse’ </li></ul><ul><li>Leaders can help OR harm this process </li></ul>
    61. 62. Symptoms of groupthink <ul><li>Overestimating the group </li></ul><ul><li>Becoming close-minded </li></ul><ul><li>Pressures toward conformity </li></ul>&quot;Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.&quot; - Walter Lippmann
    62. 63. Factors that promote groupthink <ul><li>Cohesive group </li></ul><ul><li>Strong, popular leader, with vision </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dissent seems disloyal & personal </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Mindguards” & other pressures to conform, including stifling dissent </li></ul><ul><li>Isolation </li></ul><ul><li>Group has high self-regard and moral self-righteousness </li></ul><ul><ul><li> So it seems OK to disregard outside views </li></ul></ul>
    63. 64. Are groups smart? <ul><li>Two heads are better than one… </li></ul><ul><li>But two heads working together aren’t as good as two heads working independently </li></ul>
    64. 65. Brainstorming <ul><li>Generation of ideas in a group to enhance group creativity </li></ul><ul><li>Does brainstorming  greater creativity? </li></ul><ul><li>People enjoy the process & evaluate it favorably </li></ul><ul><li>Output is lower than individuals working alone </li></ul><ul><li>Nominal groups outperform ‘real’ interactive groups. </li></ul>
    65. 66. Brainstorming <ul><li>Why? </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation apprehension </li></ul><ul><li>Social loafing </li></ul><ul><li>Production matching </li></ul><ul><li>Production blocking </li></ul><ul><li>Remedies </li></ul><ul><li>Electronic brainstorming </li></ul><ul><li>Heterogenous groups </li></ul>
    66. 67. How groups think <ul><li>Collective wisdom of group is better than individual experts </li></ul><ul><li>People must act as independent members of a group and share their diverse information </li></ul>
    67. 68. Teams <ul><li>Many believe teams </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Make better decisions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve performance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>People enjoy working on teams </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Satisfies their need to belong </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feel confident, effective & superior </li></ul></ul>
    68. 69. Transactive memory <ul><li>Members of a small group remember different things. </li></ul><ul><li>Begins at learning stage where group can decide roles for learning different things. </li></ul>
    69. 70. Groupthink <ul><li>Tendency of group members to think alike. </li></ul><ul><li>Group clings to shared but flawed view rather than being open to the truth (Janus, 1972, 1982). </li></ul><ul><li>Roots in desire to get along . </li></ul>
    70. 71. Signs of groupthink <ul><li>Pressure toward conformity </li></ul><ul><li>Appearance of unanimous agreement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-censorship </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Illusion of invulnerability </li></ul><ul><li>Sense of moral superiority </li></ul><ul><li>Tendency to overestimate opponents </li></ul>
    71. 72. Factors that encourage groupthink <ul><li>Fairly similar & cohesive group to start. </li></ul><ul><li>Strong, directive leader. </li></ul><ul><li>Group is isolated in some sense from others. </li></ul><ul><li>Group regards itself as superior. </li></ul>
    72. 73. Why aren’t committees effective? <ul><li>Group harmony stifles free exchange of information </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on common knowledge rather than unique information that people have </li></ul>
    73. 74. What is a camel? <ul><li>A horse designed by committee. </li></ul>
    74. 75. Why aren’t committees effective? <ul><li>Too many cooks spoil the broth. </li></ul>
    75. 76. The wisdom of crowds <ul><li>Why the many are smarter than the few & </li></ul><ul><li>How collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies & nations </li></ul>
    76. 77. The wisdom of crowds <ul><li>Criteria which separate wise from irrational crowds: </li></ul><ul><li>Diversity of opinion </li></ul><ul><li>Independence </li></ul><ul><li>Decentralization </li></ul><ul><li>Aggregation </li></ul>
    77. 78. Failures of crowd intelligence <ul><li>Too </li></ul><ul><li>homogenous </li></ul><ul><li>centralised </li></ul><ul><li>divided </li></ul><ul><li>imitative </li></ul><ul><li>emotional </li></ul>
    78. 79. Risky shift <ul><li>Group discussion tends to lead to more risky decisions  A group becomes more willing to take greater risks than individuals (on average) e.g., “running of the bulls”. </li></ul>
    79. 80. Group polarisation <ul><li>Risky Shift is now more generically discussed as “group polarisation”  t endency of group members to strengthen the initial inclination of groups and shift towards more extreme positions as a result of group discussion. </li></ul><ul><li>i.e., could become more risky or more conservative </li></ul>
    80. 81. Group polarisation <ul><li>Movement toward either extreme (risk or caution) resulting from group discussion </li></ul>
    81. 82. Persuasive Arguments Theory <ul><li>During discussion, people are exposed to novel arguments that support initial position </li></ul><ul><li>Become more convinced of initial position </li></ul><ul><li>BUT - group polarisation is found in studies involving perceptual judgements </li></ul>
    82. 83. Social Comparison/Value Theory <ul><li>Competition between group members to represent some underlying valued position </li></ul><ul><li>Social comparison - strive to represent most valued (extreme) position </li></ul><ul><li>BUT - group polarisation occurs for ‘non-value’ judgements </li></ul>
    83. 84. Minimal Group Paradigm <ul><li>Tajfel et al. (1971) - minimal group experiments </li></ul><ul><li>Most popular strategy was to favour the ingroup as much as possible. </li></ul><ul><li>Ingroup bias occurs in absence of personal gain & intergroup competition. </li></ul>
    84. 85. Intergroup Conflict <ul><li>What are the minimal conditions for intergroup conflict? (A: mere categorisation) </li></ul><ul><li>Is competition between groups necessary (& sufficient) for intergroup conflict? (A: Interdependence & conflict of interest is not necessary for bias against outgroups). </li></ul>
    85. 86. Intergroup Contact & Superordinate Goals <ul><li>May  conflict &  cooperation </li></ul><ul><li>Sherif’s studies - needed superordinate goals in addition to contact to produce cooperation </li></ul><ul><li>Superordinate goals only work if goal is achieved </li></ul><ul><li>Failure may worsen intergroup relations - attributed to outgroup </li></ul><ul><li>Recategorisation (Common Ingroup Identity Model) </li></ul>
    86. 87. Self-Categorisation Theory <ul><li>Prototype </li></ul><ul><ul><li>position that defines what group has in common compared to outgroups </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ingroup members conform to prototype or ingroup norm </li></ul><ul><li>Tends to be polarised in intergroup contexts </li></ul>
    87. 88. Intergroup conflict <ul><li>Sherif’s summer camp studies (Sherif, 1956) </li></ul><ul><li>Studies had 4 phases: </li></ul><ul><li>1. Boys arrive at camp, formed friendships </li></ul><ul><li>2. Split into 2 groups that cut across friendship lines, groups isolated </li></ul>
    88. 89. Intergroup conflict <ul><li>3. 2 groups brought together to engage in intergroup competition </li></ul><ul><li>4. Introduced superordinate goals   d intergroup conflict. </li></ul>
    89. 90. Sherif studies: Important points <ul><li>Some ethnocentrism present before competition </li></ul><ul><li>Boys did not have authoritarian personalities </li></ul><ul><li>Ingroups formed even though friends were outgroup members </li></ul><ul><li>Mere contact was insufficient to improve intergroup relations </li></ul>
    90. 91. Realistic Conflict Theory <ul><li>Mutually exclusive goals  intergroup conflict & ethnocentrism </li></ul><ul><li>Shared goals requiring intergroup interdependence for achievement  conflict, promote cooperation </li></ul><ul><li>Conflict will not occur when there is no personal gain for individuals in groups </li></ul>
    91. 92. Conclusions <ul><li>Groups influence the behaviour of individuals. </li></ul><ul><li>Group decisions tend to be different to individual decisions (but not necessarily worse) </li></ul><ul><li>Conflict between groups – realistic conflict theory vs. social identity theory. </li></ul>
    92. 93. Conclusions <ul><li>Submerging the individual in the group often leads to “bad” outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>Role differentiation & division of labour make human groups effective </li></ul>
    93. 94. Overview: Pt 1 (Groups) <ul><li>Questions about groups </li></ul><ul><li>What is a group? </li></ul><ul><li>Groups, roles, and selves </li></ul><ul><li>Group action </li></ul><ul><li>How groups think </li></ul><ul><li>Group decision making </li></ul><ul><li>Effects of groups on individuals </li></ul><ul><li>Social facilitation </li></ul><ul><li>Hawthorne effect </li></ul><ul><li>Social loafing </li></ul><ul><li>Intergroup conflict </li></ul><ul><li>Co-operation between groups </li></ul><ul><li>Self-categorisation theory </li></ul><ul><li>Social categorisation theory </li></ul>
    94. 95. Overview: Pt 2 (Leadership) <ul><li>Power and Leadership </li></ul>
    95. 96. Leadership questions <ul><li>What is leadership? </li></ul><ul><li>What is followership? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the characteristics of successful leaders? </li></ul><ul><li>Do leaders show distinctive patterns of behavior? </li></ul><ul><li>What leadership styles are there? </li></ul>
    96. 97. Leadership questions <ul><li>How does leaders’ behavior vary with the situation? </li></ul><ul><li>What sources of power and influence are used by leaders? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the effects of different types of leadership? </li></ul><ul><li>Can we do without leadership? </li></ul><ul><li>How can leadership skills be developed? </li></ul>
    97. 98. Social psychology of leadership <ul><li>Leadership is… </li></ul><ul><li>A relationship </li></ul><ul><li>A group phenomenon </li></ul><ul><li>A form of social influence </li></ul>
    98. 99. <ul><li>Process of getting the cooperation of others in accomplishing a desired goal. </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals. </li></ul>What is leadership ?
    99. 100. <ul><li>“ You know what makes leadership? It is the ability to get men to do what they don't want to do and like it.” </li></ul><ul><li>34 th president of the United States of America </li></ul>“ The most powerful kind of leadership is to offer people pathways and permissions to do things they want to do but feel unable to do for themselves. That sort of energy evokes energies within people that far exceed the powers of coercion.” (Palmer 1993)
    100. 101. What is a follower? <ul><li>A follower is an individual who pursues the ideas, goals, or tasks of a leader. </li></ul><ul><li>Followers can be developed by working together to identify goals and strategies for achieving the goals. </li></ul>
    101. 102. Follower characteristics <ul><li>Identification with the leader and the vision </li></ul><ul><li>Heightened emotional levels </li></ul><ul><li>Willing subordination to the leader </li></ul><ul><li>Feelings of empowerment </li></ul>
    102. 103. Leadership characteristics <ul><ul><li>Involves non-coercive influence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is goal directed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires followers </li></ul></ul>
    103. 104. Evolution of Leadership Theory
    104. 105. Modern thought on leadership <ul><li>Post-WWI brought the demise of “hereditary leadership”  First theories on personal qualities or traits </li></ul><ul><li>Post-WWII, shift to observable behaviours </li></ul><ul><li>1960’s - Situational leadership </li></ul><ul><li>Recently - Transactional to transformational leadership </li></ul>
    105. 106. Traditional leadership theories <ul><li>Dispositional/trait theories </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Leadership is personality traits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Certain attributes make a great leade r </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Behavior theories </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Leadership is what someone does </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Situational (contingency) theories </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Leadership is situational/contingent. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interaction between leader & situation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Someone may be an effective leader in one circumstance but ineffective in a different circumstance. </li></ul></ul>
    106. 107. The Trait Approach: Great Person Theory <ul><li>Leaders possess special traits that set them apart from others & that these traits are responsible for their assuming positions of power & authority. </li></ul>
    107. 108. Trait theories <ul><li>Theories that consider personality, social, physical, or intellectual traits to differentiate leaders from followers, e.g.,: </li></ul><ul><li>Drive, ambition, & energy </li></ul><ul><li>Desire to lead </li></ul><ul><li>Honesty & integrity </li></ul><ul><li>Self-confidence </li></ul><ul><li>Intelligence </li></ul><ul><li>Job-relevant knowledge & technical expertise </li></ul>
    108. 109. Leadership Traits <ul><li>Traits of successful leaders </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Humble and modest </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extreme persistence </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Traits of people perceived as good leaders </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Decisive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competent at group tasks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Possess integrity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Honest and good moral character </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Have vision </li></ul></ul>
    109. 110. Negative leadership traits that prevent individuals from being leaders <ul><li>Uninformed </li></ul><ul><li>Non-participative </li></ul><ul><li>Rigid </li></ul><ul><li>Authoritarian </li></ul><ul><li>Offensive </li></ul>
    110. 111. Criticisms – Trait Theories <ul><li>No universal traits predict leadership in all situations </li></ul><ul><li>Unclear evidence of the cause and effect of relationship of leadership and traits. (Which comes first, trait or leadership position?) </li></ul><ul><li>Traits predict behavior better in “weak” than “strong” situations. </li></ul>
    111. 112. Criticisms – Trait theories <ul><li>Provides little advice or training to give current or soon-to-be leaders </li></ul><ul><li>Better predictor of the appearance of leadership than distinguishing effective and ineffective leaders. </li></ul><ul><li>Overlooks needs of followers </li></ul><ul><li>Fails to clarify trait's relative importance. </li></ul>
    112. 113. Leadership roles <ul><li>Early studies identified 3 different styles: </li></ul><ul><li>Autocratic </li></ul><ul><li>Democratic </li></ul><ul><li>Laissez-faire </li></ul>
    113. 114. Leadership styles <ul><ul><li>1. The quality of group output was better under democratic leadership. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. Democratic leadership took more time than autocratic. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3. Member satisfaction was higher under democratic leadership. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4. The democratic group had the lowest absenteeism. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5. The democratic group fostered more independence. </li></ul></ul>
    114. 115. Contingency Leadership Theory <ul><li>Effective leadership behavior depends on the situation at hand </li></ul><ul><li>G iven the right context, every leadership theory or model is the correct one. </li></ul><ul><li>There is no one best style of leadership </li></ul><ul><li>Leadership style must match the situation </li></ul>
    115. 116. Task- vs People-Oriented Leadership <ul><li>Task-Oriented </li></ul><ul><ul><li>task is uppermost; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>employee needs close supervision; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>supervisor upset when tasks not accomplished; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>human aspect neglected; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>regular checks on work progress; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>perceived as “tough”; </li></ul></ul><ul><li>People-Oriented </li></ul><ul><ul><li>concern for subordinates’ needs; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>climate building; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>inquiries about problems; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>can be counterproductive if “overdone”. </li></ul></ul>
    116. 117. The Continuum of Leadership Behavior (Tannenbaum, 1974) AUTOCRAT DEMOCRAT PUSH Tells Sells [Tests] Consults Joins PULL Boss Employee
    117. 118. Task vs. relationship <ul><li>Task-oriented Leadership </li></ul><ul><li>Best under situations of high or low control </li></ul><ul><li>Relationship-oriented Leadership </li></ul><ul><li>Best under situations of </li></ul><ul><li>moderate control </li></ul>
    118. 119. <ul><li>Reasons for a more participative or democratic style: </li></ul><ul><li>Information or expertise exists among subordinates </li></ul><ul><li>Greater understanding, acceptance and support of decision by subordinates </li></ul>Autocractic or Democratic?
    119. 120. Path-Goal Theory <ul><li>Subordinates will be motivated by a leader only to the extent they perceive this individual as helping them to attain valued goals. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, adopt a leadership style that is appropriate to the situation to maximise performance & job satisfaction. </li></ul>
    120. 121. Path-Goal Leadership Styles <ul><li>Directive </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Informs subordinates of expectations, gives guidance, shows how to do tasks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Supportive </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Friendly and approachable, shows concern for status, well-being and needs of subordinates </li></ul></ul>
    121. 122. Path-Goal Leadership Styles <ul><li>Participative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consults with subordinates, solicits suggestions, takes suggestions into consideration </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Achievement oriented </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sets challenging goals, expects subordinates to perform at highest level, continuously seeks improvement in performance, has confidence in highest motivations of employees </li></ul></ul>
    122. 123. Path-Goal Guidelines to Be Effective Leader <ul><li>Determine the outcomes subordinates want </li></ul><ul><li>Reward individuals with their desired outcomes when they perform well </li></ul><ul><li>Be clear with expectations </li></ul>
    123. 124. Transactional & Transformational Leadership As a transactional leader, I use formal rewards & punishments. As a transformational leader, I inspire and excite followers to high levels of performance.
    124. 125. McGregor’s Theory X & Theory Y <ul><li>2 assumptions about human nature: </li></ul><ul><li>Theory X </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Workers are passive and lazy, prefer to be led, and resist change </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Theory Y </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Management’s task is to ensure that workers' important needs are met </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Either theory can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. </li></ul>
    125. 126. Servant Leadership <ul><li>Servant Leaders focus on providing  d service to others—meeting the goals of both the followers and the organisation—rather than themselves </li></ul>
    126. 127. Benefits of Leading Without Authority <ul><li>Latitude for creative deviance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Easier to raise questions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Issue focus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Freedom to focus on single issue, rather than many issues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Frontline information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Often closer to the people who have the information </li></ul></ul>
    127. 128. Substitutes for leadership <ul><li>In some situations, the leader may not be necessary. Other factors may substitute for or neutralise leader’s influence, e.g.,: </li></ul><ul><li>Workers who are experienced or trained </li></ul><ul><li>Jobs that are unambiguous or satisfying </li></ul><ul><li>Workgroups that are cohesive </li></ul><ul><li>Goals that are formalised </li></ul><ul><li>Rules that are rigid </li></ul>
    128. 129. What is power? <ul><li>Ability to get someone to do something you want done. </li></ul><ul><li>Capacity to make things happen in the way you want. </li></ul><ul><li>Extent to which 1 person can exert more force on other group members than they, in turn, can exert to resist the powerful person’s intentions. </li></ul>
    129. 130. Effects of power on leaders <ul><li>Feel good </li></ul><ul><li>Are reward-oriented </li></ul><ul><li>Changes relationships between people </li></ul><ul><li>Rely more on automatic processing </li></ul><ul><li>Removes inhibitions against taking action </li></ul>
    130. 131. Effects of power on followers <ul><li>Followers pay extra attention to the powerful person & try to understand him/her </li></ul><ul><li>People with less power will be prone to fostering peace & harmony </li></ul><ul><li>People low in power adapt to the expectations of high-power people </li></ul>
    131. 132. Bad bosses <ul><li>In surveys, a majority of people say the worst thing about their job is their boss </li></ul><ul><li>Estimates suggest over 50% of managers in America are incompetent or otherwise bad </li></ul>
    132. 133. Bad bosses: Four types <ul><li>Promoted above ability (Peter Principle) </li></ul><ul><li>Fails to build a good team (poor hiring choices) </li></ul><ul><li>Poor interpersonal skills (arrogant, etc.) leading to conflicts </li></ul><ul><li>Undermines the group (e.g., betrays trust) </li></ul>
    133. 134. Dangerous leaders <ul><li>“ Emotional disregard and disconnection from others” (Mayer, 1993) </li></ul><ul><li>Indifference toward people’s suffering, devaluation of people generally </li></ul><ul><li>Intolerant of criticism (e.g., suppressing dissent) </li></ul><ul><li>Grandiose sense of national entitlement </li></ul>
    134. 135. Summary & conclusions <ul><li>Leadership plays a central part in understanding group behavior. </li></ul><ul><li>A lot of research has illustrated the complexity of leadership. </li></ul><ul><li>Leadership as person, role, & situation. </li></ul><ul><li>Literature provides some support for the role of individual differences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Appear to be key skill and traits for associated with effective leadership </li></ul></ul>
    135. 136. Summary & conclusions <ul><li>Leader as an active, flexible pursuer of vision who influences others towards achievement of vision. </li></ul><ul><li>No one style of leadership is always the preferred leadership style. </li></ul><ul><li>Leadership is not value- & culture-bound. </li></ul><ul><li>Leadership may not be necessary given the right conditions. </li></ul>
    136. 137. Summary & conclusions <ul><li>Humans gradually developed means of transferring power without violence </li></ul><ul><li>Restricting power is one great achievement of human culture </li></ul>
    137. 138. References <ul><li>Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. </li></ul>