1. Social loafing in work
teams
STUDENT NUMBER: 43530214
NAME: OLIVER ARMSTRONG
Word Count: 1627

2. Introduction
This essay aims to discuss the issues and causes of social loafing and provides two
potential interventions organisations could consider to reduce the effects of social
loafing. Social loafing is defined as the tendency of individuals to expend less effort
when working in a group (Ulke & Bilgic, 2011) and is a major issue impacting
organisations, particularly the capacity to maximise performance and efficiency.
Organisations are at risk if they do not address the issues and causes of social
loafing, having the potential to be confronted with a workforce where motivation
losses can occur (Price, Harrison, & Gavin, 2006), which can lead to loss of profits,
efficiency and productivity. This essay will explore both work and personality factors
that may cause social loafing. Work factors can include, group size, accountability
and group cohesiveness (Smrt & Karau, 2011), and personality factors include
winning orientation and preference for group work (Stark, Shaw, & Duffy, 2007). This
essay will suggest two potential interventions organisations could use to reduce the
effects of social loafing.
Problems with Social Loafing
Social loafing is an important issue as it can have a negative impact on
organisations. It is one of the main contributors of loss of motivation and as a result,
loss of productivity and quality of the work (Price et al., 2006). This is due to other
team members needing to exert more effort to make up for the loafers lack of
contribution. Social loafing also has some significant indirect costs for an
organisation in the form of loss of productivity and motivation. Liden, Wayne,
Jaworski, and Bennett (2004) found, productivity loss in some cases is attributed to
social loafing. Due to this loss in productivity, indirect costs to the organisation

3. increases as a result of still paying the loafing employee as well as the extra time
taken to cover for the problem employee (Rolf van, Tissington, & Hertel, 2009).
Further, studies have shown that other forms of social loafing have arisen that affect
areas outside of group work such as cyberloafing. Cyberloafing is when employees
use work time on the Internet for non-work related activities (Kidwell, 2010). The
concern for organisations is that cyberloafing and social loafing are inter-related and
stem from each other. An employee is likely to take part in both social and
cyberloafing as a result of the other (Kidwell, 2010). This leads to a further
productivity and motivation loss as it can occur outside of team work environment.
Therefore, social loafing is a significant issue for organisations due to the negative
impacts associated with loss of motivation, productivity and the costs associated with
this.
There are two main factors that contribute to social loafing: work-related and
personality-related factors (Stark et al., 2007). Work-related factors, also known as
situational moderators in the context of social loafing, include group size,
accountability, task meaningfulness and group cohesiveness (Smrt & Karau, 2011).
It is the negative changes in these situational moderators that tend to cause an
increase in social loafing. Recent research undertaken by Meyer, Schermuly, &
Kauffeld (2015) identified that participants reduced their effort if their partners did not
try as hard. Therefore, suggesting that perceived social loafing leads to more loafing.
This may be because employees feel as if they shouldn’t be required to do work
when others around them are doing the same. This can cause a motivation loss of
other employees, resulting in a further decline in other group members as their
workload increases, creating a snowball effect (van Dick, Stellmacher, Wagner,

4. Lemmer, & Tissington, 2009). Identifiability (or accountability) is another major cause
of work-related social loafing (Ulke & Bilgic, 2011). A study found that when group
members are rewarded equally for their product, some believed that they aren’t able
to receive their fair share of praise when they did the most work, causing them to
resort to social loafing (Price, 1987; Williams, Harkins & Latane, 1981 as cited by
Ulke & Bilgic, 2011).
A person’s individual personality-related traits can also impact on social loafing. A
study by Smrt and Karau (2011) attained that individuals with strong commitment to
hard work are especially likely to work hard on collective tasks. It is these particular
personality traits that influence social loafing. Employees who show the opposite are
more likely to loaf as a result, both in and out of teamwork. These types of
employees are often more susceptible to various work-related factors of social
loafing (Price et al., 2006; Smrt & Karau, 2011). This may be as a result of
personality traits causing an inherent disposition towards social loafing, meaning
employees are more likely to also loaf using the various work-related factors.
Social loafing in certain situations may not necessarily result in negative outcomes.
Schippers (2014) found that having levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness
were positively related to social loafing tendencies, with performance staying on par.
However, these are relatively niche case, as it requires particular employees who
have high levels of these positive traits to influence social loafing tendencies
positively. Despite this, it can still allow for the other employees to produce work of a
higher standard, as they must work harder for a good outcome for the team. This

5. extra drive can lead to the overall standard of work being higher if little or no social
loafing were to occur (Schippers, 2014).
Interventions
The evidence base suggests that work-related factors are the major contributors to
social loafing, as personality traits are intrinsic by nature and that they can occur
independent of personality factors (Liden et al., 2004; Price et al., 2006; Rolf van et
al., 2009). Therefore, interventions targeted at work-related factors may be the best
option. One potential intervention is to increase the identifiability of employees in
work teams. This means that an organisation should increase employee's
accountability for the work they have done. Price et al. (2006) discussed the effect of
increasing identifiability on social loafing. In the lab tests they found that there was
no detectable main effect of identifiability. This was however attributed to the fact
that test subjects anticipated more lenient ratings from co-workers (Price et al.,
2006). It was recommended that using a tangible reward could result in more
legitimate ratings, such as a bonus pay increase. For example, someone who knows
they will get paid less as a result of loafing, is more likely to put the effort into the
task (Price et al., 2006). This would also increase the efficiency alongside quality of
work produced, due to all employees being held accountable for their contributions.
However, this method does have its drawbacks. In some cases, identifiability can
overwhelm how the task is undertaken (George, 1992, as cited by Price et al., 2006).
For example, an employee could try go above and beyond what work needs to be
done, and as a result produce a lower quality piece of work in an effort to make it
look as if they have contributed more. Further, it could also lead to a bias in
allocating identifiability between the team.

6. Another potential intervention for social loafing is to increase task preparation though
structural design, conflict management, and goal setting. Kidwell (2010) found that
by having a common and agreed upon purpose for the team from the beginning, led
to a decrease in overall social loafing. Conducting an initial strength and weakness
evaluation allows for employees to be assigned to the right sections, decreasing the
chance of social loafing occurring. Further, it was found that having a good conflict
management system in place reduces social loafing, as social loafers specifically
reported more conflict occurring in teams (Kidwell, 2010). Therefore, it is important
for the proper goals, conflict resolution and task design to be put in place prior to the
commencement of the task in order to lower the chance of social loafing taking
place. Doing so does however have some negative consequences. Whilst this can
give a more holistic view on the situation, employees are still capable of loafing as
there are still no consequences for doing so. This forces others in the team to pick
up the slack as a result of the loafers not being held accountable (Price et al., 2006).
Based on the evidence and two interventions examined, the most appropriate
approaches to reduce the effects of social loafing would be to increase the
identifiability and accountability of employees. Kidwell (2010) went on to state that for
taks preparedness to be successful, further measures, such as increasing
identifiability at the end of the project, are required. This suggest that accountability
and identifiability are better overall interventions for dealing with social loafing. Used
in conjunction with other potential interventions could improve the impact on social
loafing more. Further, addressing identifiability may indirectly influence other factors
causing social loafing such as group cohesion and perceived fairness within a team.
From an organisational perspective, identifiability is an appropriate place to target as

7. there are many ways in which it can be targeted. If the organisation already has
monetary bonuses in place for group effort, they may want to focus on intrinsic
motivators, such as employee of the group or month, in order to further reduce social
loafing in teams through identifiability and accountability.
Conclusion
Social loafing is therefore a significant issue for organisations due to the loss of
profits, efficiency and productivity as a result of loafing. There are various factors that
contribute to social loafing, including personality and work related factors. The
evidence suggests that work related factors have increased impact on of social
loafing when compared to personality due to the intrinsic nature of personality traits.
Therefore, interventions targeting work related issues were recommended. The two
interventions suggested were identifiability and increased task preparation. Both
interventions could see an overall reduction in social loafing, however, using
identifiability as the primary intervention would see the greatest decrease in social
loafing.

8. Bibliography
Kidwell, R. E. 2010. Loafing in the 21st century: Enhanced opportunities—and
remedies—for withholding job effort in the new workplace. Business Horizons,
53(6): 543-552.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. 2004. Social loafing: A field
investigation. Journal of Management, 30(2): 285-304.
Meyer, B., Schermuly, C. C., & Kauffeld, S. 2015. That’s not my place: The
interacting effects of faultlines, subgroup size, and social competence on social
loafing behaviour in work groups. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology: 1-18.
Price, K. H., Harrison, D. A., & Gavin, J. H. 2006. Withholding inputs in team
contexts: Member composition, interaction processes, evaluation structure, and
social loafing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1375-1384.
Rolf van, D., Tissington, P. A., & Hertel, G. 2009. Do many hands make light work?
European Business Review, 21(3): 233-245.
Schippers, M. C. 2014. Social Loafing Tendencies and Team Performance: The
Compensating Effect of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 13(1): 62-81.
Smrt, D. L. & Karau, S. J. 2011. Protestant Work Ethic Moderates Social Loafing.
Group Dynamics-Theory Research and Practice, 15(3): 267-274.
Stark, E. M., Shaw, J. D., & Duffy, M. K. 2007. Preference for group work, winning
orientation, and social loafing behavior in group. Group & Organization
Management, 32(6): 699-723.
Ulke, H. E. & Bilgic, R. 2011. Investigating the Role of the Big Five on the Social
Loafing of Information Technology Workers. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 19(3): 301-312.
van Dick, R., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Lemmer, G., & Tissington, P. A. 2009.
Group membership salience and task performance. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 24(7-8): 609-626.