Groups in Organizations: Fads, Findings, Frontiers
Robert DipboyeRice University
Fads: Teams were Once Ignored But Are Now “All the Rage”
1
A Recent “Nonscientific” Survey of Executives
5
General Feelings About
Teams
Agree Neutral Disagree
I prefer to work with
others in a team rather than
work alone.
50.9% 33% 21.3%
I like it when the team
members do things on their
own rather than work with
others all the time
49% 22.6% 26.4%
I prefer to do my own
work and let others do
theirs.
34% 34% 32.2%
I believe teamwork can
produce better results than
individual efforts.
83.9% 9.4% 4.7%
Positive Experiences in Teams Almost
Always/
Often
The team recognized the unique expertise
and knowledge that each member could
contribute to their tasks
61.3%
The team stimulated members to put more
effort into their tasks than they would
have if they had worked alone.
61.3%
The team developed clear objectives and
strategies for its work
56.6%
The team as a whole rose to a level of
performance that exceeded the
performance of any single member.
48.1%
Members of the team thought more
carefully and analytically when working
in the team than they would have working
alone.
46.2%
Negative Experiences in Teams Almost
Always/
Often
Members of the team wasted time 45.3%
Conflicts occurred among some members
of the team
43.4%
Members of the team went along with the
majority opinion even when it went
against their better judgment
56.6%
The team had individuals who slacked off
and didn’t do their fair share of the work.
33%
Members of the team got stuck in routine
ways of doing things and didn’t consider
new approaches and ideas
29.2%
Members of the team looked out for their
personal interests and failed to put the
organization’s interests first
23.6%
Members of the team failed to take
personal responsibility for the decisions of
the team.
18.8%
What is This Thing Called “Group”? “Groups are open and complex systems that
interact with the smaller systems (I.e., the members) embedded within them and the larger systems (e.g., organizations) within which they are embedded. Groups have fuzzy boundaries that both distinguish them from and connect them to their members and their embedding contexts.”
Arrow, McGrath, and Berdahl, 2000, p. 34
6
What Are the Types of Groups? Work groups
Task forces Crews Teams
Clubs Economic clubs Social clubs Activity clubs
7
How Do Groups Perform? Group Productivity = Group
Potential - Process Loss Ivan Steiner
Example From an Interview Study Validity of interviewer 2:
r (118) = .25, p < .01
Validity of panels: With interviewer 2: r (118)
= .24, p < .01 Without interviewer 2: r
(299) = .05, ns.
Why Might Groups Fail to Meet Their Potential?
Technical knowledge, skills, and abilities
Interpersonal knowledge, skills, and abilities
Problems of KSAOs that Members Bring to Task
Groups are prone to jump immediately to solutions without defining the problem, setting objectives, generating alternatives, planning task strategies, or assessing the resources they can apply to the problem
Problems of Group Strategy
Social loafing/free riding Focused too much on self
and not enough on task Negative attitudes toward
groups and lack of motivation to work in groups
Problems of Member Motivation
Analyzed 61 estimates of effect of group heterogeneity on group performance
Overall correlation of .0758 (SER = .0149)
Evidence that task type and heterogeneity type moderated the relationship
Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Group Heterogeneity on Group Performance
Findings for Personal Heterogeneity Performance tasks:
r = .0186 Intellective tasks:
r = .1324 Decision making
r = .1269 Creative
r = .1660 Mixed motive
r = .1565
Findings for Technical Heterogeneity
Intellective tasks: r = .0501
Decision making r = -.0409
Creative r = .1596
Size Moderated Effects of Heterogeneity
Large groups, technical heterogeneity: r = .2961
Small groups, technical heterogeneity: r = -.0424
Large groups , personal heterogeneity: r = .0348
Small groups, personal heterogeneity r = .0800
Heterogeneity and Top Management Team Performance
Firm performance and technical heterogeneity: r = ..0263
Firm performance and personal heterogeneity: r = -.1069
Firm creativity and technical heterogeneity: r = .1185
Firm creativity and personal heterogeneity: r = -.0058
Groups of three performed three tasks: history, sports, literature
Half groups spent about five minutes discussing and ranking the relative expertise of members: Expert Identification
Other half spent five minutes discussing why they came to Rice: No expert identification
An Experimental Evaluation of a Simple Intervention to Improve Group Assessment of Resources
With expert identification M = 5.19
Without expert identification M = 4.82
F (1,58) = 4.12, p < .05
Effects of Expert Identification on Satisfaction of Group Members with Group’s Decision
With expert identification M = 2.26 (range: -2 to +8)
Without expert identification M = .84 (range: - 5 to +8)
F (1,58) = 5.29, p < .05
Effects of Expert Identification on Performance Gain of Group Over Potential Performance
An Experimental Evaluation of Holding Members Accountable
Participants were Assigned to One Cell of a 2 X 2 Factorial
Group vs Individual Condition: Believed they were part of a group or performed alone
High vs. Low accountability: Performance visibility and justification of the performance or anonymous performance and no justification
Task ability: High vs. low, participants above median were high task ability and those at or below the median were low task ability
Based on performance of the task prior to the experiment.
A Third Measured Factor
Findings Main effect of ability; high ability
members performed better than low ability members (F (1,56) = 14.49, p < .001)
Main effect of accountability ;accountable members had higher performance (F(1,56) = 5.08, p < .05)
3 way interaction of ability X accountability X ind vs group (F(1, 56) = 6.21, p < .05).
Three Way Interaction Suggests Use of Accountability as a Means of Reducing Social Loafing
Evidence of social loafing when people felt they were part of a group
Accountability eliminated social loafing in high ability group and led to social facilitation effect
Accountability did not affect social loafing in low ability group
An Experimental Evaluation of Focusing Attention on Task vs. Focusing Attention on Self
Participants assigned to 3 to 5 person groups
Performed Desert Survival Problem alone on three different trials
After each trial members received feedback of their total performance on the task after trials 1 and 2
After receiving individual feedback the members met as a group to discuss their answers
Participants assigned to task or ego-involvement condition
Ego-Involvement: We will evaluate you on the basis of
your interactions in the group. Among the personal characteristics that we will assess are decision making ability, social skill, and general leadership capabilities….We are interested in how well you do relative to others in the group. Try to do as well as you can in your performance of the task and in the group sessions.
Task-Involvement We know that everyone is capable of
doing well on this task if they are given sufficient time and opportunity to learn. We will ask you to perform this task several times, and we would like you to improve your performance. .. How well you do relative to others is not important. ..we are mainly concerned with how you personally improve in your performance over trials…Try to improve your performance as much as you can.
Findings.. Same Effects Were Found at Individual and Group Levels.
Task-involved participants performed better than ego-involved participants and improved to a greater extent across trials (F(2,40) = 4.08, p < .024.
The proportion of ego-involved participants who derogated the feedback (.23) was larger than the proportion of task involved participants who derogated the feedback (.02), 2 (1, 20) = 9.51, p < .01.
Derogation of Feedback
Relationship of Perceived and Actual Performance
There was a statistically significant relationship between perceived and actual performance for task-involved participants (r (47) = .377, p < .01) but not for ego-involved participants (r(47) = .067, p <.70).
Satisfaction with Performance “How satisfied would you be if
you personally attained the same level of performance in the next session?” Task-involved participants
said they would be less satisfied (M = 2.94) than ego-involved participants (M = 3.60), F(1,20) = 7.89, p <.05.
Interaction of goal-orientation and performance (F (1,81) = 3.88, p < .05).
Good performers talked a larger proportion of time (M = .29) than poor performers (M = .20) in task-involved conditions.
Poor performers talked about the same (M = .25) as good performers (M = .22) in the ego-involved conditions.
Time Spent Talking
Are These Process - Performance Linkages Limited to the Lab?
“Former theories may have been adequate for simple laboratory tasks, they are not adequate for the more complex, interdependent tasks in the organization….Group leaders may be focusing on internal variables like cohesiveness when they should be allocating more time to negotiating favorable objectives or promoting group outputs to top management.”
Gladstein, ASQ, 1984
Limitations of Previous Field Research on Process - Performance Linkages
The measure of group performance is often far removed from group process
Performance measures are often subjective
Group size in some studies is very small
Very little attention to possible moderating influence of group size… more often seen as a nuisance variable
Conducted with groups involved in an employee involvement program in a large utility
Objective of EIP was to generate ideas to improve productivity and reduce costs
Over 60 groups were formed and were trained in group problem solving
A Field Exploration that Improved on these Neglects
Variables Measured with Questionnaire
Internal Group Process: 35 items - strategy, effort, utilization, etc.
Success/Satisfaction: 10 items - self-perceived success, potency
Personal Benefits: 6 items - member evaluations of personal benefits from group
Management support: 4 items - support of group’s efforts
Group size: 56 groups ranging in size from 5 - 15
Functional area of group: line vs. support
Number of approved ideas: 0 - 59 ideas were approved by management at the end of the yearafter the survey was completed
Technical Heterogeneity: diversity of functional representation in the group
Other Variables
Return Rate
383 of 448 group members surveyed returned questionnaire for an 85% return rate
56 of 59 groups surveyed returned questionnaires for a 94% return rate
Regression of the Number of Approved Ideas on
Group size Technical Heterogeneity Perceived Management Support Perceived Personal Benefits of
Group Participation Internal Group Process
R square = .3693, p < .001 Group size:
Beta = .2413, p < .10 Heterogeneity:
Beta = .3987**, p < .01 Perceived management support:
Beta = -.1565, ns Perceived personal benefits:
Beta = -.4403*, p < .05 Internal group process:
Beta = .2024, ns
Group Size Moderated the Relation of Process to Productivity
The product of internal process and size was added at the sixth and last step of the above regression
Rsquare = .4172, p < .001 Beta for product of internal
process and size:
Beta = -.2516*, p < .05.
The number of approved ideas generated increased with improved internal process to a much greater extent in larger groups
Correlation of internal process with number of approved ideas was r = .53 (p<.01) in large groups; r = .12 (ns) in small groups.
Interpretation of this moderating effect
Personal Benefits to Productivity Management Support to
Productivity
Group Size Also Moderated the Relation of
As Group Size increased, the perceived benefits of the group was more strongly predictive of group productivity
As Group Size increased, the perceived management support was more strongly predictive of group productivity
The Nature of the Moderating Effects was Similar to that Found for Internal Process
Fads… Findings... Frontiers…
Conclusions
Fads They are annoying but can be a
source of knowledge and insight We need research of all types to
determine whether there is substance underlying what’s currently hot.
Group Process matters in predicting performance but perhaps not as much as perceived personal benefits
Greater technical heterogeneity of the group is conducive to higher group productivity
Group size is a crucial moderator of the effects of process, perceived benefits, and perceived management support
Findings
Taking seriously the fact that groups are systems
Identifying, measuring, and understanding group types and the types of group tasks and tools
The relationship is the ground, all else is figure.
Frontiers of Group Research