Function of Groups

Affiliation (e.g., sororities, fraternities, clubs)

Survival

Vital for task completion (organizations, work groups, charities)

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

Group Processes

Do people try less hard when working in groups? Does social loafing occur?

Ringleman Effect?

Social Loafing

The average performance (input) of individuals decreases as

group size increases

Ringelmann Findings

Individuals Individual Efforts(Sum)

Group Effort Group/Individual

Ratio

1-7 764 480 .63

8-14 516 432 .84

15-21 533.7 435.4 .82

22-28 575.5 471.2 .82

15-28 1109.2 858.9 .78

Why?

a) Less effort

b) Coordination issues

Precursor to the Latane et al study (Ingram et al, 1974)

Yelling (& clapping) study by Latane, Williams, & Harkins

Procedure?

Alone

In actual groups

In pseudo-groups

Less individual effort when in groups, even in “groups” when no one was present (but people thought they were)

10

8

6

4

2

Sound pressure per person

1 2 6

Group size

Reduced effort

(Social loafing)

Coordination loss

Potential productivity

Pseudo-groups

Actual groups

Social Loafing on a More Complex Task

Social Loafing on a More Complex Task (cont.)

Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics

Procedure?

Survey: List of 92 adjectives rated on a 5-point scale from (1) “Not Characteristic to (5) “Characteristic”

Ratings on:

Men in General, Women in General, and Successful Manager in General

Results – Ratings by males?

Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics

Results – Rating by females?

Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.)

Results?

Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.)

High agreement in ratings

Less agreeme

nt on ratings of women

by males and

females

Results regarding specific trait differences?

Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.)

Males higher ratings on “Dominant-Aggressive” characteristics – e.g., competitive, need for power, aggressive, assertive (especially by male raters)

Females higher ratings on “Social Humanitarian” characteristics -- e.g., sympathetic, desire for friendship, helpful (especially by female raters)

Big Picture Implications?

Less representation of females in business (e.g., CEOs), politics (e.g., U.S. Senate), academic administration (e.g., universities)

Females in Leadership Positions - Percent of females in US Senate?

Barbara Mikilski

Dianne Feinstein

Barbara Boxer

Debbie Stabenow

Maria Cantwell

Parry Murray Susan Collins

Mary Landrieu

Lisa Murkowski

Amy Klobuchar

Jeanne Shaheen

Kirsten Gillibrand

Kelly Ayotte

Claire McCaskill

Kay Hagan

Tammy Bladwin

Deb Fischer Heidi Heitkamp

Mazie Hirono Elizabeth Warren

20

Company CEO Company CEOGENERAL MOTORS Mary Barra

2014AVON Sherilyn McCoy

2012

HEWLETT-PACKARD Meg Whitman 2011

SEMPRA ENERGY Debra Reed 2011

 IBM Virginia Rometty2012

GUARDIAN LIFE Deanna Mulligan2011

PEPSICO Indra Nooyi 2006

CAMPBELL SOUP Denise Morrison2011

A.D.M Patricia Woertz2006

MYLAN Heather Bresch2012

LOCKHEED MARTIN Marillyn Hewson2013

INGREDION Ilene Gordon2009

DUPONT Ellen Kullman2009

CH2M HILL Jacqueline Hinman 2014

MONDELEZ Irene Rosenfeld2006

GRAYBAR ELECTRIC Kathleen Mazzarella 2012

GENERAL DYNAMICS Phebe Nokakovic2013

GANNETT Gracia Martore2011

TJX Carol Meyrowitz2007

FRONTIER COMM. Maggie Wilderotter 2006

XEROX Ursula Burns 2009 YAHOO Marissa Meyer2012

DUKE ENERGY Lynn Good 2013

Female CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies?

2011 = 12; 2012 = 1823 (Link)

Females as CEOs --- increase in stock price

But, it depends on industry

Price goes up higher if female CEO is head of female-dominated business, otherwise small decrease in stock price (Cooke & Glass, 2011)

Survey of over 60,000 direct reports

No gender preference for one’s own boss

“Ideal” boss:

54% -- No Preference

13% -- Female Preference

33% -- Male Preference

Gender and Leadership: Recent Findings

• Small but significant preference for opposite-sex bosses• Increased preference for stereotypical female leader characteristics (sensitive, supportive) vs. direct, forceful. Study by Elesser & Lever (2011)

Zajonic’s Theory of Social Facilitation

Well-learned(dominant)response

Poorly learnedor novel(non-dominant)response

Social Facilitation

Performance enhanced

Social Interference

Performance hindered

Arousal causedby presence of others

Charting the Course of Groupthink

Irving Janis depicted groupthink as a kind of social disease, complete with antecedents and symptoms, that increased the chance of making a bad decision. (Based on Janis, 1982.)

Antecedents

• High cohesiveness• Isolation• Directive leader • Homogeneous membersStressful situations

Symptoms

• Overestimation of the group (invulnerability) • Close-mindedness• Rationalization • Increased pressures toward uniformity• “Mindguards” and pressure on dissenters• Self-censorship• Illusion of unanimity

Consequences

Incomplete survey of

alternatives

Poor information

search

Failure to examine risks of preferred

choice

High probability

of a bad decision

Other Group Decision-Making Phenomena

Collective Entrapment --- The more effort used to make a decision, the greater likelihood of sticking to that decision (even if it’s been shown to be incorrect)

Common Knowledge Effect --- Information held by most group members exerts a stronger impact on final decisions

~ Social Identity Theory ~[In-Group Bias]

They tendency to link one’s self-concept and self esteem with the status and/or behavior of groups

Also, people tend to reward members of ingroups and disfavor those in outgroups (e.g., Minimal Group Paradigm) ---

Basking in Reflected Glory ---

Favorite Football Team wins --- “We;” More likely to wear team t-shirt

Favorite Football Team loses --- “They”

• Liking, spend time with leader

• Challenging, visible jobs

• Better memory for good behavior

• Treated warmly

• Performance evaluations

• Allocation of rewards

• Less desirable jobs

• Less time spent with supervisor

• Treated formally

• Lower performance evaluations

• Less rewards

In and Out-Groups Bias

In-group characteristics

Out-group characteristics

Are Groups Good or Bad?

Gustav Le Bon (1895) stated that leaders can manipulate citizens by simplifying ideas, substituting affirmation and exaggeration for proof, and by repeating points over and again. (From: Forsyth, 2010) --- Concept of “deindividuation”

LeBon and Tarde --- Mass hysteria