Johns 10e Irm ch07 PDF

CHAPTER 7
GROUPS AND TEAMWORK
CHAPTER LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading Chapter 7, students should be able to do:

LO7.1 Discuss group development.
LO7.2 Explain how group size and member diversity influence what occurs in groups.
LO7.3 Review how norms, roles, and status affect social interaction.
LO7.4 Discuss the causes and consequences of group cohesiveness.
LO7.5 Explain the dynamics of social loafing.
LO7.6 Discuss how to design and support self-managed teams.
LO7.7 Explain the logic behind cross-functional teams and describe how they can
operate effectively.
LO7.8 Understand virtual teams and what makes them effective.
CHAPTER OUTLINE AND TEACHING NOTES
What Is a Group?
A group consists of two or more people interacting interdependently to achieve a

common goal. Interaction is the most basic aspect of a group as it suggests who is in the
group and who is not. Group memberships are very important since they are the social
mechanisms by which we acquire many beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviours. Groups
exert a tremendous influence on us and they provide a context in which we are able to
exert influence on others.
Formal work groups are groups that are established by organizations to facilitate the
achievement of organizational goals. They are intentionally designed to channel
individual effort in an appropriate direction. The hierarchy of most organizations is a
series of formal, interlocked work groups. Task forces, project teams, and committees are
examples of formal work groups. Informal groups are groups that emerge naturally in
response to the common interests of organizational members. They are seldom sanctioned
by the organization, and their membership often cuts across formal groups. They can
either help or hurt an organization.
Group Development
Groups are complex social devices that require a fair amount of negotiation and trail-and-
error before individual members begin to function as a true group.
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

7-2 Johns/Saks, Organizational Behaviour, Tenth Edition
Typical Stages of Group Development

Groups develop through a series of stages over time. These stages are forming, storming,
norming, performing, and adjourning.
Forming. Forming is the early stage of group development during which time group
members try to orient themselves by “testing the waters.”
Storming. Storming is the second stage where conflict often emerges. Sorting out roles
and responsibilities is often at issue here.
Norming. Norming is the stage where group members resolve issues that are provoked in
the storming stage and they develop social consensus. Norms are agreed to and the group
becomes more cohesive.
Performing. Performing is the stage where the group devotes its energy toward task
accomplishment.
Adjourning. Adjourning is the fifth and final stage of group development where the group
disperses. Rites and rituals that affirm the group’s previous successful development are
common. Members often exhibit emotional support for each other.
Not all groups go through these stages of development. The process applies mainly to
new members that have never met before. Also, some organizational settings are so
structured that storming and norming are unnecessary for even strangers to coalesce into
a team.
Punctuated Equilibrium
The punctuated equilibrium model is a model of group development that describes how
groups with deadlines are affected by their first meetings and crucial midpoint transitions.
The model breaks the group development process into two phases, and highlights the
importance of the midpoint transition as crucial in the groups meeting its goal by the
project deadline.
Phase 1. Phase 1 begins with the first meeting and continues until the midpoint in the
group’s existence. The very first meeting is critical in setting the agenda for what will
happen in the remainder of this phase. At this stage, the group makes little visible
progress toward the goal.
Midpoint Transition. The midpoint transition occurs at almost exactly the halfway point
in time toward the group’s deadline. The transition marks a change in the group’s
approach and how the group manages it is critical for the group to show progress.
Phase 2. The decisions and approaches adopted at the midpoint get played out in Phase 2.
It concludes with a final meeting that reveals a burst of activity and a concern for how
outsiders will evaluate the product.

Chapter 7 Groups and Teamwork 7-3
The punctuated equilibrium model suggests the following for managing product
development teams, advertising groups, or class project groups:
1. Prepare carefully for the first meeting.

2. As long as people are working, do not look for radical progress during Phase 1.
3. Manage the midpoint transition carefully.
4. Be sure that adequate resources are available to actually execute the Phase 2 plan.
5. Resist deadline changes. These could damage the midpoint transition.
Group Structure and Its Consequences
Group structure refers to characteristics of the stable social organization of a group or the
way a group is “put together.” The most basic structural characteristics along which
groups vary are size and member diversity. Other structural characteristics are norms,
roles, status, and cohesiveness.
Group Size
The smallest group consists of two persons. In practice, most work groups, including task
forces and committees, usually have between 3 and 20 members.
Size and Satisfaction. Members of larger groups report less satisfaction with group
membership than those who find themselves in smaller groups. There are a number of
reasons for this. In theory, larger groups provide more opportunities for members to
encounter friends who share their attitudes or meet their social needs, promoting
satisfaction. However, as group size increases, these opportunities might decrease due to
the time and energy required. In addition, larger groups can prompt conflict and
dissension and the time available for verbal participation by each member decreases.
Inhibition regarding participation can also increase among many group members as group
size increases. Individual members identify less easily with the success of larger groups.
Size and Performance. The relationship between group size and performance depends on
the type of task a group performs. Additive tasks are tasks in which group performance is
dependent on the sum of the performance of individual group members. Thus, potential
performance on additive tasks can be predicted by adding the performances of individual
group members together. The potential performance of the group increases with group
size. Potential performance on disjunctive tasks depends on the performance of its best
group member and also increases with group size because the probability that the group
includes a superior performer is greater. Potential performance will be greater than actual
performance because of process losses that occur as a group gets bigger. Process losses
are group performance difficulties stemming from the problems of motivating and
coordinating larger groups. Up to a point, larger groups might perform better as groups,
but their individual members tend to be less efficient. Group performance on conjunctive
tasks is limited by the performance of the poorest group performer. Both the potential and
actual performance on conjunctive tasks should decrease as group size increases, because
the probability of including a weak member increases. Thus, for additive and disjunctive
tasks, larger groups might perform better up a point but at increasing costs to the

efficiency of individual members. Performance on purely conjunctive tasks should

decrease as group size increases.
Diversity of Group Membership

Group diversity has a large impact on the functioning of work groups and interaction
patterns. More diverse groups have a greater difficulty communicating effectively and
becoming cohesive, but once they do develop, they can be just as cohesive and
productive as non-diverse groups. Diverse groups can sometimes perform better on
certain tasks. Diversity in educational background and functional specialty enhances team
creativity and innovation because a wider variety of ideas are considered. Negative
effects of “surface diversity” in age, gender, or race are small or wear off over time.
“Deep diversity” in attitudes toward work or how to accomplish a goal can badly damage
cohesiveness.
Group Norms
Social norms are collective expectations that members of social units have regarding the
behaviour of each other. They are codes of conduct that specify what ought and ought not
to be done and standards against which we evaluate the appropriateness of behaviour.
Norm Development. Norms develop to provide regularity and predictability to

behaviours that are considered important to their supporters Less deviation is accepted
from norms that concern more important behaviours. Norms develop in the following
manner: When members of a group share related beliefs and values, they often share
consequent attitudes. The shared attitudes then form a basis for norms. Norms are
collectively held expectations, depending on two or more people for their existence.
Individuals comply with norms because norms correspond to privately held attitudes or
because they save time and prevent social confusion. Also, groups have a wide range of
rewards and punishments available to induce conformity to norms.
Some Typical Norms. Some common organizational norms that affect the behaviour of
members include the following:
a. Dress norms that dictate the kind of clothing people wear to work.
b. Reward allocation norms that dictate how rewards should be allocated. Four such
norms are equity, equality, reciprocity, and social responsibility.
c. Performance norms that dictate what is an appropriate level of performance.
Roles
Roles are positions in a group that have a set of expected behaviours attached to them.
While many norms apply to all group members, the development of roles is indicative of
the fact that group members might also be required to act differently from one another.
Thus, roles apply to particular group members. In organizations, we find two basic kinds
of roles. Designated or assigned roles are formally prescribed by an organization as a
means of dividing labour and responsibility to facilitate task achievement. They indicate
“who does what” and “who can tell others what to do.” Emergent roles develop naturally

to meet the social-emotional needs of group members or to assist informally in job

accomplishment.
Role Ambiguity. Individuals often encounter difficulties in the assumption of roles. For
example, an individual may experience role ambiguity when the goals of his/her job or
the methods of performing it are unclear. Certain organizational factors lead role senders
(such as managers) to develop role expectations and “send” roles to focal persons (such
as employees). Presumably, the focal person “receives” the role and then tries to engage
in behaviour to fulfill the role.
This role assumption process reveals a variety of elements that can lead to role
ambiguity.
• Organizational factors. Some roles are inherently ambiguous because of their function
in the organization. For example, middle management roles might fail to provide the
“big picture” that upper management roles do.
• The role sender. Role senders may have unclear expectations of a focal person. Even
when a sender has specific role expectations, they may be ineffectively sent to a focal
person.
• The focal person. The focal person may not fully comprehend his or her role
especially when he or she is new to the role. However, role ambiguity should
decrease as length of time on the job role increases.
Role ambiguity has number of consequences. The most frequent outcomes appear to be
stress-related reactions, dissatisfaction, reduced organizational commitment, lowered
performance, and intentions to quit. Managers can reduce role ambiguity by providing
clear performance expectations and performance feedback.
Role Conflict. Role conflict exists when an individual is faced with incompatible
expectations. Role conflict can take four forms.
• Intrasender role conflict occurs when a single role sender provides incompatible
role expectations to the role occupant. It is especially likely to also provoke role
ambiguity.
• Intersender role conflict occurs when two or more role senders provide a role
occupant with incompatible expectations. Boundary role occupants are especially
likely to encounter this form of conflict.
• Interrole conflict occurs when several roles held by a role occupant involve
incompatible expectations. Competing demands for time are a frequent symptom
of inter-role conflict.
• Person-role conflict occurs when role demands call for behaviour that is
incompatible with the personality or skills of a role occupant. Many examples of
“whistle-blowing” are signals of person-role conflict.
As with role ambiguity, the most consistent consequences of role conflict are job
dissatisfaction, stress reactions, lowered organizational commitment, and turnover

intentions. Managers can prevent role conflict by avoiding self-contradictory messages,

conferring with other role senders, being sensitive to multiple role demands, and fitting
the right person to the right role.
Status
Status is the rank, social position, or prestige accorded to group members. It represents a
group’s evaluation of a member.
Formal Status Systems. Formal status systems are management’s attempt to publicly
identify those persons who have higher status than others. Formal status systems make
status apparent to observers by applying status symbols, which are tangible indicators of
status such as titles and pay packages. Formal organizational status is often determined
by one’s seniority in a work group and one’s assigned role in an organization (one’s job).
Status and the symbols connected to it serve as a powerful magnet to induce members to
aspire to higher organizational positions and they reinforce the authority hierarchy in
work groups and in the organization as a whole. People pay attention to high-status
individuals.
Informal Status Systems. Informal status systems also exist in organizations,

although they lack conspicuous symbols and systematic support usually accorded to a
formal system. They can operate just as effectively as formal status systems. Job
performance as well as gender or race can be the basis for the acquisition of informal
status.
Consequences of Status Differences. Status affects the ways in which people

communicate with each other. Most people like to communicate with others at their own
status or higher, rather than with people who are below them. As a result, communication
is likely to move up the status hierarchy in organizations. If status differences are large,
people can be inhibited from communicating upward and as a result much
communication gets stalled. As well, higher status people do more talking and have more
influence, however, there is no guarantee that the highest-status person is the most
knowledgeable about the problem at hand.
Reducing Status Barriers. Although status differences can be powerful motivators, status
differences also tend to inhibit the free flow of communication. As a result, many
organizations downplay status differentiation by doing away with questionable status
symbols such as executive dining rooms and reserved parking in an attempt to foster a
culture of teamwork and cooperation across the ranks. The use of e-mail has been found
to level status barriers, thus facilitating communication between people at all levels of the
organization.
Group Cohesiveness
Group cohesiveness refers to the degree to which a group is especially attractive to its
members. Members are especially desirous of staying in the group and tend to describe

the group in favourable terms. Cohesiveness is a relative, rather than absolute, property of
groups.
Factors Influencing Cohesiveness

Some of the factors that contribute to cohesiveness include threat, competition, success,
member diversity, group size, and toughness of initiation.
Threat and Competition. External threat to the survival of the group increases
cohesiveness in a wide variety of situations. Honest competition with another group can
also promote cohesiveness. Groups probably feel a need to improve communication and
coordination so that they can better cope with the situation at hand. However, under
extreme threat or very unbalanced competition, increased cohesiveness will serve little
purpose.
Success. Groups become more attractive to their members when they successfully
accomplish some important goal. By the same token, cohesiveness will decrease after
failure.
Member Diversity. Groups that are diverse in terms of gender, age, and race can have a
harder time becoming cohesive. However, if a group is in agreement about how to
accomplish some particular task, its success in performing the task will often outweigh
surface dissimilarity in determining cohesiveness.
Group Size. Bigger groups generally have a more difficult time becoming and staying
cohesive. They have a more difficult time agreeing on goals and more problems
communicating and coordinating efforts to achieve those goals.
Toughness of Initiation. Groups that are tough to get into are often more attractive than
those that are easy to join.
Consequences of Cohesiveness
Whether more or less cohesiveness is a desirable group property depends on the
consequences of group cohesiveness and who is doing the judging.
More Participation in Group Activities. Because cohesive groups are attractive to

their members and members wish to remain in the group, they should be especially
motivated to participate in group activities. Thus, voluntary turnover from the group
should be low and absence should be lower than in less cohesive groups. Participation
should be reflected in a high degree of communication within the group.
More Conformity. Highly cohesive groups are equipped to supply information, rewards,
and punishment to individual members. Thus, highly cohesive groups are in a superb
position to induce conformity to group norms. Members react to deviants by increasing
the amount of communication directed at them and apply pressure to get them to comply
with group norms.

More Success. Cohesive groups are especially effective at accomplishing their own goals.
This is due to the high degree of participation and communication as well as active
conformity to group norms and commitment. However, it is questionable if managers
should attempt to increase the cohesiveness of groups. If the group’s goals correspond to
those of the organization, increased cohesiveness may have substantial benefits with
regard to group performance. If group goals go against those of the organization,
performance will suffer accordingly. Thus, cohesive groups tend to produce more or less
than less cohesive groups. In addition, there is less variability in the productivity of
members of cohesive groups. Cohesiveness is more likely to pay off when the task
requires more interdependence. In a good labour relations climate, group cohesiveness on
interdependent tasks should contribute to high productivity. In summary, cohesive groups
tend to be successful in accomplishing what they want to accomplish.
Social Loafing
Social loafing is the tendency to withhold physical or intellectual effort when performing
a group task. It is a motivational problem and one of the reasons for process losses in
large groups. It takes two different forms. In the free rider effect, people lower their effort
to get a free ride at the expense of other group members. This is the phenomenon of
others not pulling their weight on a group project. In the sucker effect, people lower their
effort because of the feeling that others are free riding. That is, they are trying to restore
equity in the group.
There are a number of ways to counteract social loafing.
• Make individual performance more visible. The simplest way to do this is to keep
the group small in size.
• Make sure that the work is interesting. If the work is involving, intrinsic
motivation should counteract social loafing.
• Increase feelings of indispensability. Training and the status system can provide
group members with unique inputs.
• Increase performance feedback. Increased feedback from the boss, peers, and
customers should encourage self-correction.
• Reward group performance. Members are more likely to monitor and maximize
their own performance when the group receives rewards for effectiveness.
What Is a Team?
Some writers have suggested that a team is different from a group because in a team a
synergy develops such that the group’s efforts are greater than the sum of its parts.
However, the term “team” is more generally used to describe “groups” in organizational
settings and the terms can be used interchangeably. Many organizations now use team-
based work arrangements in an attempt to improve efficiency and quality. Research has
shown improvements in organizational performance in terms of both efficiency and
quality as a result of team-based work arrangements.

When it comes to teams, collective efficacy is important to ensure high performance.

Collective efficacy consists of shared beliefs that a team can successfully perform a given
task. In the following sections we cover the factors that contribute to collective efficacy
in a team.
Designing Effective Work Groups
According to J. Richard Hackman, a work group is effective when (1) its physical or
intellectual output is acceptable to management and to the other parts of the organization
that use this output, (2) group members’ needs are satisfied rather than frustrated by the
group, and (3) the group experience enables members to continue to work together.
Group effectiveness occurs when high effort is directed toward the group’s task, when
great knowledge and skill are directed toward the task, and when the group adopts
sensible strategies for accomplishing its goals. An organization can achieve this with self-
managed work teams.
Self-Managed Work Teams

Many organizations have been adopting self-managed work teams to enhance teamwork
and group effectiveness. These groups generally provide their members with the
opportunity to do challenging work under reduced supervision. They are also called
autonomous, semi-autonomous, or self-directed groups. The main idea is that the groups
regulate their own members’ behaviour. Critical to the success of self-managed teams are
the nature of the task, the composition of the group, and the various support mechanisms
in place.
Tasks for Self-Managed Teams. The tasks assigned to self-managed work teams should
be complex and challenging, requiring high interdependence among team members for
accomplishment. They should be designed according to job enrichment principles such as
task significance, skill variety, and task identity. The text provides a number of examples
in both the blue-collar and white-collar domains. The key theme here is a breakdown of
traditional, conventional, specialized roles in the group. Group members adopt roles that
will make the group effective.
Composition of Self-Managed Teams. The composition of self-managed teams should be

oriented toward fostering high cohesiveness and the development of group norms that
stress group effectiveness. Some principles include the following:
• Stability. Group membership must be fairly stable. Rotating members into and out of
the group will cause it to fail to develop a true identity.
• Size. Keep the group as small as is feasible given the task.
• Expertise. The group as a whole should have high expertise to accomplish the task.
Social skills are also important for all members.
• Diversity. Members should be similar enough to work together and diverse enough to
include a variety of perspectives and skills to the task.
One way of maintaining appropriate group composition might be to let the group choose
its own members. Selection is critical as there is some evidence of elevated turnover in

self-managed teams. Fit is important and it is well worth the extra effort to find the right
people.
Supporting Self-Managed Teams. Self-managed groups require special support to ensure

they become and stay effective. Problems with teams can usually be traced back to
inadequate support.
• Training. Members of self-managed teams require extensive training. The kind of

training depends on the exact job design and the needs of the workforce. Some
common areas include technical training, social skills, language skills, and business
training.
• Rewards. Rewards should be tied to team accomplishment rather than to individual
accomplishment while still providing team members with some individual
performance feedback to counteract social loading.
• Management. Managers can serve important functions by mediating relations between
teams and by dealing with union concerns. The most effective managers in a self-
management environment encourage groups to observe, evaluate, and reinforce their
own task behaviour. Coaching teams to be independent enhances their effectiveness.
Exhibit 7.7 summarizes the factors that determine work group effectiveness. Research
has found improvements in team productivity, quality, customer satisfaction, and safety
following the implementation of self-managed work teams.
Cross-Functional Teams
Another kind of team that contemporary organizations are using with increasing
frequency is the cross-functional team. Cross-functional teams are work groups that bring
people with different functional specialties together to better invent, design, or deliver a
product or service. They are best known for their success in product development. The
general goals of cross-functional teams include some combination of innovation, speed,
and quality that comes from early coordination among the various specialties. Cross-
functional teams get all specialties working together from day one.
Principles for Effectiveness. A number of factors contribute to the effectiveness of cross-

functional teams.
• Composition. All relevant specialties must be part of the team, including labour
representatives and suppliers where appropriate.
• Superordinate goals. Conflict may sometimes arise from the colliding cultures of
different functions. Superordinate goals are attractive outcomes that can only be achieved
by collaboration. They help to override detailed functional objectives that might be in
conflict.
• Physical proximity. Team members must be located close to one another to facilitate
informal contact.
• Autonomy. Cross-functional teams need some autonomy from the larger
organization, and functional specialties need some authority to commit their function
to project decisions.

• Rules and procedures. Petty rules and procedures are to be avoided. However, some
basic decision procedures must be laid down to prevent anarchy.
• Leadership. Because of the potential for conflict, cross-functional team leaders need
especially strong people skills in addition to task expertise.
One of the goals of several of these principles is to ensure that team members share
mental models. Shared mental models mean that team members share identical
information about how they should interact and what their task is. Shared mental models
enhance coordination and contribute greatly to effective team performance, at least when
the shared knowledge reflects reality. Shared mental models are a particular challenge to
instill in cross-functional teams due to the different backgrounds of team members.
Virtual Teams
Virtual teams are work groups that use technology to communicate and collaborate across
space, time, and organizational boundaries. Along with their reliance on computer and
electronic technology, the primary feature of these teams is the lack of face-to-face
contact between team members due to geographic dispersion. Virtual teams are often
cross-functional. Technologies used by virtual teams can be asynchronous or
synchronous.
Advantages of Virtual Teams. Virtual teams have a number of advantages.
• Around-the-clock work. Globally, using a virtual team can create a 24-hour team that
never sleeps.
• Reduced travel time and cost. Virtual teaming reduces travel costs associated with
face-to-face meetings and can lead to significant savings of time and money, and
concerns over air travel also make virtual teams an attractive alternative.
• Larger talent pool. Virtual teams allow companies to expand their potential labour
markets and to go after the best people, even if they have no interest in relocating.
Virtual teams also give employees added flexibility, allowing for a better work-life
balance, which is an effective recruiting feature.
Challenges of Virtual Teams. Virtual teams involve some disadvantages and managers
must recognize they present unique challenges and should not be treated as regular teams
that just happen to use technology.
• Trust. Trust is difficult to develop between virtual team members.

• Miscommunication. The loss of face-to-face communication presents certain risks for
virtual teams. The richness of face-to-face communication is lost and
miscommunication can result. These risks are particularly high on global virtual
teams.
• Isolation. The lack of casual interactions with co-workers can lead to team members
having feelings of isolation and detachment.
• High costs. Savings in areas such as travel must be weighed against the costs of
cutting-edge technology. Initial set-up costs can be substantial.
• Management issues. For managers, virtual teams create new challenges in terms of
dealing with subordinates who are no longer in view.

A review of research on information sharing in virtual teams versus face-to-face

teams by Jessica Mesmer-Magnus and colleagues found that virtual teams engaged in a
lower volume of information sharing but were in fact more likely to share unique
information which was not known by other team members. However, the performance of
virtual teams was especially dependent upon them also having a high volume of open
communication to complement the unique ideas. The authors also found support for the
idea that hybrid teams that combine face-to-face interaction with virtual interaction are
especially likely to share information.
Lessons Concerning Virtual Teams. A number of lessons are beginning to emerge about
what managers must do or keep watch for when developing virtual teams.
• Recruitment. Choose team members carefully in terms of attitude and personality.

Find people with good interpersonal skills, not just technical skills.
• Training. Invest in training for both technical and interpersonal skills.
• Personalization. Encourage team members to get to know each other, either through
informal communication using technology or by arranging face-to-face meetings.
• Goals and ground rules. Virtual team leaders should define goals clearly, set rules for
communication standards and responses, and provide feedback to keep team members
informed of progress and the big picture.
The key appears to be in recognizing the ways in which these teams are different than
those based in a single office environment but not falling into the trap of focusing solely
on technology. Many of the general recommendations that apply to any work team also
apply to virtual teams.
A Word of Caution: Teams as a Panacea
Switching from a traditional structure to a team-based configuration is not a cure-all for

an organization’s problems. Some suggest that the team approach puts unwanted pressure
and responsibilities on workers. Many organizations have rushed to deploy teams with
little planning, often resulting in confusion and contradictory signals to employees. Good
planning and continuing support are necessary for the effective use of teams.
MINI-LECTURE: EXTREME ROLE READINESS
Roles can be extremely powerful determinants of behaviour. Furthermore, role

assumption does not necessarily depend on a long period of social shaping and
preparation. Frequently, individuals show a remarkable ability to assume roles based on
their stereotypes of those roles. Psychologist Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University has
demonstrated the power over behaviour which even temporary and unfamiliar role
assignments can exert.

Zimbardo and his students placed newspaper advertisements asking for college students
to serve in a two-week study involving prison life, for which they would receive $15 a
day. The male applicants were screened for physical and psychological normality, and
eleven were randomly assigned to be “guards,” while ten were assigned “prisoner” roles.
On the day the study was to begin, the prisoners encountered an “arresting” experience!
Without notice, local police officers arrived at their homes.
They were soon interrogated, fingerprinted, and hustled off to the “jail” which had been
constructed in the basement of the Stanford psychology building.
There they encountered the depressing specter of cells, public toilets, and an arbitrary set
of rules and regulations. Their uniforms consisted of loose-fitting smocks and stocking
caps, and they were addressed only by their convict number. The guards wore
paramilitary uniforms with reflective sunglasses and billy clubs. They were instructed to
keep order and maintain the rules. No physical violence was permitted. The guards were
allowed to go home between their eight-hour shifts. Zimbardo was the warden.
Were the psychologically normal prisoners and guards ready to assume the unfamiliar
roles?
Ready, willing and able. The guards soon began a campaign of incredible harassment
against the prisoners. Physical intimidation and sadistic psychological abuse became the
order of the day.
Although the guards had at their disposal a variety of rewards to control prisoner
behaviour (including movies and exercise privileges), they were never used. Rules and
regulations were modified to increase their negative impact. The prisoners also
conformed to their roles. After some initial protest, they gradually became more and
more depressed, passive, and dependent. This dehumanized response only encouraged
further abuse from the guards.
On the third day, a prisoner was released because he was showing signs of extreme
disturbance. In the succeeding three days, three others were released for similar reasons.
Although the study was scheduled to last two weeks, Zimbardo terminated it after six
days. All in all, it was a graphic demonstration of the power of roles in shaping
interpersonal behaviour.
Source: Based on Zimbardo, P.G., Haney, C., Banks, W.C., & Jaffe, D. (1973, April 8).
The mind is a formidable jailer: A Pirandellian prison. The New York Times, 38-60. A
synchronized tape and slide presentation of the Stanford prison study is available. Check
your local school audiovisual department or write to Philip C. Zimbardo, In., Box 4395,
Stanford, CA 94203.

MINI-LECTURE: THE BANK WIRING ROOM
In order to solidify understanding of group formation and structure, review these topics in
the context of one of the most carefully studied work groups on record — the Bank
Wiring Unit at Western Electric’s Hawthorne works near Chicago. Although the study
was done over a half century ago, in 1931 and 1932, it still stands as a landmark in the
description of natural functioning groups. The research was conducted by the Harvard
University Graduate School of Business Administration as part of a series of studies
designed to explore the factors that influenced productivity and job satisfaction. The
techniques employed were direct observation and interviewing. For six and a half months
an observer sat in the Bank Wiring room collecting productivity records and recording
significant events and discussions. Occasionally, an interviewer would take the workers
aside and ask them questions.
The evidence indicates that this attention did not cause the group to alter its normal
behaviour. Bank wiring consisted of assembling switching units to be used in central
office telephone hookups. Some of these units were called connectors, and others were
called selectors. There were fourteen employees in the banking room, all experienced
workers ranging in age from twenty to twenty-six, except for one individual who was
forty. Since the job was well understood by the workers, supervision was minimal. They
were paid according to a group piecework system based on the productivity of the
department. Thus, the more work the department turned out, the more the workers would
make. In addition, certain jobs paid more money than others, and workers with high
efficiency ratings (usually the more experienced) made more money.
The most interesting aspects of the Bank Writing unit are revealed by comparing its
formal and informal group characteristics.
Formal Formation and Structure

The formal formation and structure of the Bank Wiring unit, as designed by the company,
was fairly straightforward.
1. Group formation. Formally, the Bank Wiring unit was a group working under a
supervisor to accomplish a physical goal. Furthermore, it was divided into three
subgroups, each of which consisted of three wiremen and a solderer. The two inspectors
shared the duties of inspecting the output of these groups. Two of the groups assembled
connectors and the other assembled selectors.
2. Roles. The assigned roles of the Bank Wiring unit reveal a clear division of labour.
The wiremen routed wires throughout the switching units, the solderers soldered the
connections, and the inspectors ensured that the completed units worked properly. On the
surface, there would seem to be little cause for role ambiguity and conflict.
3. Status. The formal status system is revealed by pay levels and the flow of work in the
unit. Inspectors were paid the most and had the option of rejecting faulty work by the
wiremen and solderers. The solderers were paid the least, had the least seniority, and in a
sense “worked under” the wiremen. Within their groups, workers could earn more pay

over time by producing at a high level. Thus, responsibility and productivity were the
major criteria for the formal status system. In terms of pay, the company did not
distinguish between connector work and selector work.
4. Norms. There were doubtless some norms established by management which were
supported by the workers, such as showing up for work on time and not causing undue
trouble in the unit. More interesting, however, are expectations and rules advocated by
management which found little support among the workers. For example, the group piece
rate system was designed to inspire the highest level of productivity, but, as we shall see,
it failed to do this. Also, there were rules against trading jobs and helping co-workers
who fell behind in their work. Again, these rules found little normative support among
the work force.
Informal Formation and Structure

To the casual observer, the formal characteristics of the Bank Wiring group look neat and
tidy. However, as the researchers probed the unit in detail, they detected a more complex
informal social system at work.
1. Group formation. First, the Bank Wiring unit was united on an informal level by a
common interest —self-defense. Specifically, the men worked together to limit their
productivity to a fairly high but constant level. Although they were vague about what
might happen if they produced too much, they seemed to feel that the company would
lower the rate of payment. Secondly, since the Bank Wiring unit was fairly large, we
might expect some informal sub-grouping.
There were two informal friendship groups in the unit, one composed of Il, W1,
W3, W4 and S1 and the other composed of W7, W8, W9, and S4. Why did these
groups form? A very important factor was physical proximity. Those individuals who
worked near each other were able to converse easily and help each other out with their
work. In addition, there were some clear status differences between these groups.
Observation indicated that attitude and personality incompatibility prevented the
formation of a third friendship group based on the “middle” wiring group.
2. Roles. The men frequently bypassed their assigned roles by swapping jobs. This
usually occurred within the friendship groups and consisted of a higher status wireman
asking a lower status solderer to switch tasks in order to relieve boredom. Several
informal roles had emerged. For example, W3, the best-liked person in the unit, was a
skilled worker who conformed to the group norms and was on his way to becoming an
informal leader. On the other hand, I3 was a scapegoat by virtue of his superior attitude
and his refusal to conform to the group norms. The inspector jobs in fact had a high
potential for role ambiguity and inter-sender role conflict. Although inspectors had the
highest formal status and were expected by management to veto poor work, any
officiousness was greatly resented by group members. I1 coped with these problems and
was accepted by the others, while I3 was finally forced to transfer to another unit.
3. Status. According to the organization, selector work was as important as connector

work. Not so in the Bank Wiring room. Although the jobs were very similar, the group

preferred the connector jobs. Since the smaller of the two friendship groups did
connectors, while the larger was centered around selector workers, a clear status
differential existed. Those who worked on connectors saw themselves as more refined,
claiming that they had higher level conversations and even that they ate better quality
candy. The lower status group retaliated with noisy horseplay and somewhat lower
productivity. Turning to individuals, it is no mystery that the lowest status member of the
lower status friendship group (S1) was relegated to being the unit “lunch boy.” On the
other hand, it is not surprising that W3, the highest status member of the higher status
group, had more communication directed at him than any other worker in the unit.
4. Norms. As was pointed out, the workers rejected the company’s rules regarding job
trading and helping co-workers. However, they developed and enforced their own set of
norms which were oriented around maintaining job security and good interpersonal
relations. These included the following: (1) Don’t produce too much or too little; (2)
Don’t “squeal” on colleagues to supervisors; (3) Don’t act officious or socially removed
from the others. Two wiremen, W2 and W5, were isolated by the unit because they
refused to limit their productivity in line with the first norm. The hated inspector, I3, was
punished by the group for squealing and “acting like an inspector.”
In summary, the Bank Wiring research shows very clearly that the characteristics of
group structure which we have studied are relevant to both formal and informal grouping.
Sources: The Hawthorne studies are described in Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, W.J.
(1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. The
description of the bank wiring room social organization draws heavily upon Homans,
G.C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
SAMPLE ANSWERS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Describe the kind of skills that you would look for in members of self-managed teams.
Explain your choices. Do the same for virtual teams.
Members of such teams need to have initiative, work well with others, and contribute
toward team effort. Thus, a degree of independence is important, tempered by good social
skills that make for smooth interaction with others. Relevant technical expertise will
assure contribution to team effort. Although usually viewed as a technological solution,
members of virtual teams must possess good interpersonal and communication skills, as
well as technical proficiency. Furthermore, members of virtual teams should have the
type of personality or attitudes conducive to working independently and in relative
isolation.
2. When would an organization create self-managed teams? When would it use cross-
functional teams? When would it employ virtual teams?
Organizations should consider self-managed teams when a team’s task is complex,
challenging, and requires a high degree of interdependence among members. Beyond task
concerns, the availability of highly skilled individuals with strong social skills and a

strong sense of autonomy are also important. Finally, organizations must consider if such
teams fit within the organizational culture and if the necessary commitment and resources
will be forthcoming from different internal constituencies. Cross-functional teams should
be considered when a task requires different functional specialties and an innovative
approach. While a sequential approach (passing the task along to different units) would
risk conflict and slow down the innovative process, cross-functional teams serve to
streamline the process of coordinating work across units. Virtual teams would be viable
when the team’s task does not require face-to-face interaction and members are
geographically dispersed. Technological resources and support, cost savings through the
reduction of travel, and access to a larger talent pool are also important considerations
3. Explain how a cross-functional team could contribute to product or service quality.

Explain how a cross-functional team could contribute to speeding up product design.
Because cross-functional teams draw on the talents of many parts of the organization,
they often bring a specific knowledge of the customer that is unknown to other parts of
the organization. This can lead to dramatic improvements in product and service quality.
A cross-functional team can also help speed up product design by bringing knowledge of
previous work in another division that can be applied to the current project.
4. Some organizations have made concerted efforts to do away with many of the status
symbols associated with differences in organizational rank. All employees park in the
same lot, eat in the same dining room, and have similar offices and privileges.
Discuss the pros and cons of such a strategy. How might such a change affect
organizational communications?
The advantages of the system include an atmosphere of equality in which the similarities
among members, rather than the differences, are emphasized. This may reduce
hierarchical tension and boost the morale of lower-level workers. It may also result in
cost savings which can be converted into rewarding good performance directly.
Disadvantages include the removal of some attractive inducements to join the
organization (at upper levels) or to seek promotion. In addition, outsiders (such as clients
and suppliers) may be confused by the lack of clear status differentiation. If the system is
accepted and works well, communication in all directions may be facilitated. There will
be fewer “status barriers” which will free communication. Companies that have de-
emphasized the formal status system tend to be high technology firms.
5. You are an executive in a consumer products corporation. The president assigns you
to form a task force to develop new marketing strategies for the organization. You are
permitted to choose its members. What things would you do to make this group as
cohesive as possible? What are the dangers of group cohesiveness for the group itself
and for the organization of which the group is a part?
It would be useful to portray this group as special, elite, and difficult to enter. Despite
temptations to expand, the group should be kept small in size. It would be sensible to
induce mild threat and competition by invoking the negative consequences of failure and
pointing out recent marketing successes by competing firms. Finally, if a successful
experience can be arranged to occur early in the group’s existence (for example, having
an early proposal accepted by top management), cohesiveness will be enhanced.

Although group cohesiveness can provide many benefits for both the group itself and the
organization, cohesiveness has potentially harmful effects. Cohesive groups exact a
strong degree of conformity from their members, and they accept relatively little
deviation from group norms. The group may suppress innovative and creative ideas. In
the long run, this may threaten the survival of the group, and, by extension, the
organization. Even in the short term, cohesive groups may develop norms and goals
which are literally self-destructive, targeted at dominating other groups or contrary to
organizational goals. Dissenting group members will experience strong conflict as the
group makes demands that go against their own values or against the good of the larger
organization. Cohesive groups tend to be successful at achieving their goals, and they
will prove damaging to the larger organization if their goals do not correspond to
organizational goals.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. Debate: Effective teamwork is more difficult for individualistic Americans,

Canadians, and Australians than for more collectivist Japanese.
The answers to this question can be varied. Collective societies such as the Japanese have
had a great deal of success in creating teams to meet goals. There is also evidence that in
individualistic societies, individual members are more apt to bring a greater amount of
creativity, and ways of doing things differently that eventually improves the productivity
of their teams.
2. Suppose that a group of United Nations representatives from various countries forms
to draft a resolution regarding world hunger. Is this an additive, disjunctive, or
conjunctive task? What kinds of process losses would such a group be likely to suffer?
Can you offer a prediction about the size of this group and its performance?
This is essentially an additive task. The more good ideas the group has, the better the
resolution will be. The value of the resolution is not totally dependent on the group’s best
member (disjunctive) or worst member (conjunctive). The group may suffer process
losses due to poor communication (language differences) and political wrangling among
members from various countries and cultures. Up to a point, increased size will improve
performance. As process losses mount with size, performance will fall. Thus, the
relationship between size and performance is curvilinear.
3. Mark Allen, a representative for an international engineering company, is a very

religious person who is active in his church. Mark’s direct superior has instructed
him to use “any legal means” to sell a large construction project to a foreign
government. The vice-president of international operations has informed Mark that
he can offer a generous “kickback” to government officials to clinch the deal,
although such practices are illegal. Discuss the three kinds of role conflict that Mark
is experiencing.
Mark Allen is experiencing (1) intersender role conflict because the superior and the
vice-president send contradictory role messages; (2) person-role conflict because his
religious beliefs conflict with the expectations of some organizational members; and (3)

interrole conflict because his role as a church elder conflicts with aspects of his company
role.
EXTRA DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the relationship between group size and group performance.

2. What are the functions that group norms serve?
3. Suppose you wanted to undermine the cohesiveness of a group. What would you do?
4. Discuss the pros and cons of forming an organizational task force with members who
have very similar attitudes and personalities versus forming one with members who
have very different attitudes and personalities.
5. Give an example of a person who is experiencing both intrasender and intersender
role conflict.
6. Explain why making groups larger does not always lead to an expected increase in
performance.
7. You have to develop a checklist for designing an effective self-managed work group.
What are its elements?
8. You have to develop a checklist for designing an effective cross-functional group.
What are its elements?
9. You have to develop a checklist for designing an effective virtual team. What are its
elements?
10. What is collective efficacy and how does it differ from self-efficacy? Why is
collective efficacy important for teams?
11. What are shared mental models and why are they important for cross-functional
teams? Why are they a challenge to instill in cross-functional teams?
SAMPLE ANSWERS TO INTEGRATIVE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What role do perceptions play in group development? Refer to the discussion of

perceptual process and biases in Chapter 3 and discuss the implications for each
stage of group development. What are the implications for improving the development
of groups?
Perception and perceptual biases might influence the development of groups. For
example, during the forming stage, group members try to orient themselves by “testing
the waters.” They are concerned with issues such as, “What are we doing here?”, “What
are the others like?”, and “What is our purpose? The situation is often ambiguous,
especially if the group members do not know each other. Perception is the process of
interpreting the messages of our senses to provide order and meaning to the environment.
Given the high degree of ambiguity during the forming stage, there will be considerable
interpretation and the addition of meaning to the target – the group and its members.
Keep in mind that ambiguous targets are especially susceptible to interpretation and
addition and perceivers have a need to resolve such ambiguities. Because the perceptual
system is efficient but often inaccurate, group members are likely to develop different
perceptions about the group and its members. Perceptual biases such as primacy, reliance
on central traits, implicit personality theories, and stereotyping are likely to influence
perceptions.

The perceptions developed during the forming stage will have implications in the
subsequent stages. During the storming stage, conflict often emerges. Confrontation and
criticism occur as members determine whether they will go along with the way the group
is developing. Sorting out roles and responsibilities is often at issue here. If the group
members have developed different perceptions about the group and its members, then
they might have trouble agreeing on roles and responsibilities. Perceptual inaccuracy
might also make it difficult to resolve the issues that provoked the storming during the
norming stage. The group might have trouble agreeing on norms and reaching social
consensus. This is likely to cause problems during the performing and adjourning stage
resulting in poor group performance and little emotional support.
The obvious implication for improving the development of groups is for the groups to get
to know each other during the forming stage. They need to have sufficient time to interact
and meet as a group. Student groups often fail to do this and as a result they never agree
on the direction of the group, roles and responsibilities, and group norms. The work is
often left to the last minute and group members wind up disliking each other. The
perceptual problems are evident when group members blame each other for not doing
what they were supposed to do and the disagreement and misunderstanding becomes
evident.
2. How can groups be motivated? Consider the implications of each of the work
motivation theories described in Chapter 5. What do the theories tell us about how to
motivate groups?
The motivation theories deal primarily with the motivation of individuals. However, they
can all easily be adapted to apply to group motivation. For example, goal setting theory
has been found to be effective for groups - group goals improve the performance of
groups. Groups can also be motivated by ensuring that group members can fulfill various
needs. For example, if the group task is challenging and complex, group members should
be able to fulfill belongingness and self-esteem needs. If rewards are tied to group
performance then physiological needs can also be fulfilled. Self-determination theory
suggests that the basic psychological needs (competence, autonomy, and relatedness) of
group members should be satisfied so that member motivation is autonomous.
Expectancy theory suggests that groups can be motivated to the extent that: 1. The group
is capable of performing at a high level; 2. If the group performs at a high level they will
be rewarded with consequences that are valent to group members. Finally, according to
equity theory, group members will be motivated if they feel that their outcome/input ratio
is equitable compared to relevant others. Therefore, it is important that group members
are willing and able to devote similar inputs to the group’s task if they receive similar
outcomes.

SAMPLE ANSWER TO ON-THE-JOB CHALLENGE QUESTION: SELF-

MANAGED TEAMS AT ISE COMMUNICATIONS
Use your understanding of both group dynamics and teams to explain why the employees
became so concerned about attendance when they were organized into teams. What had
changed?
ISE Communications is a pseudonym, but the company is real and is located in Colorado.
The newly formed work teams exhibited the storming-norming-performing sequence
mentioned in the chapter. Given the more interesting work and closeness to the customer,
most of the teams became cohesive and established good performance and attendance
norms because they now identified more closely with their work. The roles of individuals
had changed from cogs in an assembly line to valued team members on whom customers
were dependent for speedy delivery. Deviant absentees and those who were late for work
were subjected to substantial pressure from team mates to conform to attendance
standards. The new teams wielded more social power than the managers under the old
regime. For more on this setting see Case, J. (1993, September). What the experts forgot
to mention. Inc., 66-78.
TEACHING NOTES FOR NASA EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
NASA is a good exercise for illustrating how group dynamics influence group
performance. It can also be used to illustrate group decision-making in conjunction with
Chapter 11. Variations might include systematically varying the size of the groups.
Regarding the questions at the end of the exercise, the task has both additive and
disjunctive features. On one hand, the knowledge of the group members can be “added
up” to predict group performance. On the other hand, if information is weighted
according to expertise, the performance of the group can be highly influenced by its most
knowledgeable member.
In either case, performance should improve with size up to a point, since more knowledge
is available and there are more chances of including one especially knowledgeable
person. At some point, however, process losses can start to damage the group’s
performance.
Interesting group dynamics include the emergence of the role of an expert and whether
the group develops norms of deferral to the expert. In general, you can expect to find that
a group will do better than its average member, but it often doesn’t do as well as its best
member, suggesting that the group frames this as an additive task. In the event that the
individual average exceeds group performance, a little gentle probing will often uncover
the source of the dysfunction. In these exercises that involve the calculations of
differences and gains, we like to point out a logical constraint to students — the lower the
individual scores of a group the more room there is for improvement in group
performance.

Aspects of self-managing groups that are likely to prove useful for group performance
include group effort, group member’s knowledge and skill directed toward the task, and
the adoption of strategies for accomplishing the task.
Given the problem-solving nature of this task, group diversity is likely to help group
performance given the potential for members to consider a broader array of ideas and
variety of perspectives.
Here are the expert rankings along with the rationale. They are ranked from most
important (1) to least important (15).
1. Two 100-lb. tanks of oxygen. There is no air on the moon.

2. 5 gallons of water. You can’t live long without water.
3. Stellar map (of moon’s constellation). Needed for navigation.
4. Food concentrate. Can live for some time without food.
5. Solar-powered FM receiver-transmitter. Communication.
6. 50 feet of nylon rope. For travel over rough terrain.
7. First aid kit containing injection needles. First aid kit might be needed but needles are
useless.
8. Parachute silk. Carrying.
9. Life raft. Some value for shelter or carrying.
10. Signal flares. No oxygen.
11. Two .45 calibre pistols. Some use for propulsion.
12. One case dehydrated milk. Needs H20 to work.
13. Portable heating unit. Lighted side of moon is hot.
14. Magnetic compass. Moon’s magnetic field is different from the earth’s.
15. Box of matches. No oxygen.
Source: Teleometrics International.
TEACHING NOTES FOR THE GROUP ASSIGNMENT CASE INCIDENT
This incident is useful for helping students learn how to work better in groups. It is
important to highlight the need for group members to come to an agreement early on as to
what there purpose is, what the roles and responsibilities will be of each group members,
and what the group norms will be.
1. Refer to the typical stages of group development and explain the development of
Janet’s group.
Janet’s group experience is a good example of a group that has not developed. In
particular, the group does not successfully go through any of the stages of group
development. There is no forming, storming, or norming. Performance is poor and the
group disbands never to speak to each other again. In terms of the details of each stage,
they are as follows. During forming, members do not spend enough time orienting
themselves to the group. They do not bother to determine what they will be doing and

what their purpose is. The situation therefore remains ambiguous. During storming, the
group does not determine how the group should develop. There is no real conflict,
confrontation, or criticism. Roles and responsibilities are not agreed on. There is not a
sense of who is going to do what. During norming, the group does not develop any norms
with regard to how they will proceed in terms of things such as when they should meet,
how often, and what is expected of each other, etc. In fact, they cannot agree when to
meet and some members do not even show up for meetings. When they did meet, group
members had not done the work they were supposed to. The performing stage is a
complete disaster. The work is left until the last minute and it is poorly done. In the end,
Janet has to do the project herself. In the adjourning stage, the group disbands and Janet
will never be friends with the other members.
2. To what extent was group cohesiveness a problem in Janet’s work group? What
might have made the group more cohesive?
Cohesiveness is the degree to which a group is especially attractive to its members. It is
clear from the case incident, that Janet’s group is not cohesive. In fact, group members
hardly seem interested in being in the group. It is also the case that the lack of
cohesiveness is part of the group’s problem. The lack of cohesiveness can be seen in the
lack of participation in group activities on the part of group members, poor coordination,
no conformity to group norms such as attending meetings and getting work done on time,
and of course, the lack of goal accomplishment and group success. Had the group been
more cohesive, chances are there would have been more participation in group activities,
more conformity to group expectations, and a more successful outcome. The group might
have been more cohesive if there was some form of threat or competition facing the
group. For example, if the group had to make a presentation to the class, if each member
was to be evaluated for their individual performance, or if the group was also evaluated
on their performance as a group. Additionally, an instructor might make group
cohesiveness and development part of the assignment and grade the group in terms of
their development and cohesiveness.
TEACHING NOTES FOR THE LEVI STRAUSS & CO.’S FLIRTATION WITH
TEAMS CASE STUDY
1. Discuss the stages of group development and the implications of them for the
development of the teams at Levi Strauss.
One of the problems with the teams at Levi Strauss was that they did not develop
according to the stages of group development. Other than brief seminars and training on
team building and problem solving, the groups seem to have been thrown together.
Although the members probably knew each other, it is not clear that they really
understood the purpose of teams and how they should function. There seems to have been
relatively little attempt to sort out roles and responsibilities during the storming stage.
Failure to deal with conflict during the storming stage has resulted in extreme conflict
and fighting during the performing stage. During the norming stage, the groups have not
resolved issues or developed social consensus. There is little compromising and the only
norm appears to be to work fast. In general, though, there is no agreement on group
norms and the groups do not appear to have become very cohesive. In fact, some group

members actually quit. Chaos occurs during the performing stage as group members fight
with each other, and top performers harass and resent the less skilled and slower
members of the group. Threats, insults, and group infighting became a regular part of
daily work. Top performers reduced their productivity in what might be an example of
the “sucker effect. “ In terms of the adjourning stage, there is no emotional support and
the groups for the most part simply have not developed into successful, cohesive groups.
The end result is what some have described as chaos not to mention a level of extreme if
not violent conflict among group members.
2. Discuss some of the norms that emerged in the teams. What was their function and
how did they influence the behaviour of group members?
The most obvious norm that developed in the groups was speed. This should not be
surprising given that the group’s wages were based on the group’s output. Naturally, the
group was interested in enforcing a fast pace of work in order to produce more trousers
and obtain higher wages. Unfortunately, this norm resulted in dysfunctional behaviour on
the part of some group members, particularly those considered to be top performers. For
example, the top performers complained about their less skilled and slower teammates
because they caused a decline in their wages. To make matters worse, the wages of the
lower skilled workers increased which likely created a perception of inequity on the part
of the top performers who contributed more inputs but received the same outcomes as the
slower and less skilled group members. Enforcement of the norm led to threats, insults,
and group infighting which became a regular part of daily work. Faster workers tried to
rid their group of slower workers, and top performers responded to their lower wages by
reducing their productivity. Slower teammates were often criticized, needled, and
resented by their group. Excessive peer pressure to perform resulted in one enraged
worker attempting to throw a chair at a team member who constantly harassed her about
working too slow and in another incident a worker threatened to kill a member of her
team. Clearly, the pressure to conform was not only excessive but violent.
3. Discuss the role dynamics that emerged in the groups. Is there any evidence of role
ambiguity or role conflict?
The most obvious issue here is person-role conflict which occurs when role demands call
for behaviour that is incompatible with the personality and skills of a role occupant. In
this regard, the less skilled and slower team members are facing demands from the top
performers to work faster and beyond their capabilities. This is likely to result in some of
the consequences of role conflict such as job dissatisfaction, stress reactions, lowered
organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. As noted in the case, some of the
slower group members have quit. It is also possible that group members are experiencing
some role ambiguity in terms of their role as a group member. While the task itself is
clear enough, it may not be clear exactly what one’s role is within the group given that
the workers have had relatively little experience working in a group and management was
not much help given the little guidance they received in how to implement teams.

4. How cohesive were the groups at Levi Strauss? What factors contribute to the level of
cohesiveness?
The groups were not very cohesive. This is revealed, among other things, by the constant
conflict and infighting among group members. In fact, it is clear at the end of the case
that some of the workers hated working in teams and one worker responded to being laid
off as a “relief” from the burden and stress of working in teams. The lack of cohesiveness
can be traced to a number of factors. To begin with, some of the teams were simply too
big with up to 50 members. Other things being equal, bigger groups have a more difficult
time becoming and staying cohesive. Another key factor is success. Groups that are
successful are more attractive and more cohesive. However, at least for the top
performers, being in a group resulted in a reduction in their wages. Thus, the group was
not successful at least in terms of earning higher wages for top performers. Member
diversity was also a problem in terms of the skills of group members. The fact that top
performers resented and criticized the less skilled and slower group members was a
problem for cohesiveness. Clearly, the top performers did not want the slow performers
in their group and the slower members who were harassed and needled did not want to be
in the group. Not surprisingly, being in the group was not very attractive to any of the
workers.
5. The teams were supposed to be self-managing teams. Critique this idea in terms of
the principles for effectiveness for such teams given in the chapter.
The company intended the groups to be self-managing. As noted at the beginning of the
case, the change was expected to lead to a self-managed work environment to help
employees become more productive. Although the teams did operate under reduced
supervision and were responsible for resolving group problems on their own and also
divided up the work of absent members themselves, they lacked other important aspects
of a self-managed group. For example, although group members were interdependent on
each other in the production of trousers, the tasks were neither challenging nor complex.
In terms of group composition, the groups were often too large. As for expertise, some of
the group members were more skilled than others and it would appear that many of them
did not have sufficient social skills that groups require to talk things out, communicate
effectively, and resolve conflicts. The groups also suffered in terms of managerial
support. They were given only brief seminars and training on team building and problem
solving; management was not given guidance on how to implement teams which limited
their ability to support and manage the teams; and although pay was based on group
accomplishment, the differences in individual performance should also have been
considered. Finally, in terms of group processes, group members did not have sufficient
skills or knowledge to function as a group in terms of problem solving, conflict
resolution, or performance strategies. Thus, it is doubtful that the groups were really self-
managing groups in the true sense.

6. Do you think it was a good idea for Levi Strauss & Company to implement a team
system? Was it the best solution to deal with increased global competition? Why
wasn’t the team approach at Levi Strauss & Co. more effective, and with your
knowledge of groups, what might you have done differently if you had to implement a
team system at Levi Strauss?
Based on the answers to the previous questions, it would appear that it was not a good
idea for Levi Strauss to implement a team system and not the best way to deal with
increased global competition. This is clearly evident from the answer to question 6 on
effectiveness. The teams were not effective and they did not help the company achieve its
objectives. There is also evidence that the teams actually did more harm than good to the
company and its employees. Thus, on this basis it would seem that it was not a good idea.
There are a number of reasons why the team approach was not more effective. To begin
with, employees apparently had no involvement in the change program. Thus, the teams
might have been doomed from the start without employee involvement and input.
Further, it would seem that employees actually preferred the individual piece-rate system.
A second major issue here is that the teams might not have been the best system given the
nature of the employees and the task. The employees were used to working on their own.
Many of them probably lacked the social skills required to work in a group. In addition,
because the task was relatively simple and routine, it does not really lend itself to group
work. In terms of the teams themselves, the workers were not given sufficient training on
how to work in a team and managers were not given any guidance on how to implement
or manage the teams. Team size was also a factor. Some of the teams were simply too
large to be effective. A final problem concerns the pay system. Wages were based on
team productivity. However, because there were obvious differences between group
members in terms of their speed and abilities, large inequities were created. As a result,
the best performers began to receive lower wages under the team system.
Although it is questionable if teams would have ever worked given the nature of the
workers and their task, they might have been more effective if team size was smaller; if
more training and support was provided to team members; if management was better
trained on how to implement and manage teams; and if individual performance was
factored into the pay plan so that there was some degree of equity.

Johns 10e Irm ch07 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Johns 10e Irm ch07 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CHAPTER 7

GROUPS AND TEAMWORK

CHAPTER LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading Chapter 7, students should be able to do:

CHAPTER OUTLINE AND TEACHING NOTES

A group consists of two or more people interacting interdependently to achieve a

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

Typical Stages of Group Development

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

1. Prepare carefully for the first meeting.

Group Structure and Its Consequences

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

efficiency of individual members. Performance on purely conjunctive tasks should

Diversity of Group Membership

Norm Development. Norms develop to provide regularity and predictability to

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

to meet the social-emotional needs of group members or to assist informally in job

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

intentions. Managers can prevent role conflict by avoiding self-contradictory messages,

Informal Status Systems. Informal status systems also exist in organizations,

Consequences of Status Differences. Status affects the ways in which people

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

Factors Influencing Cohesiveness

More Participation in Group Activities. Because cohesive groups are attractive to

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

There are a number of ways to counteract social loafing.

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

When it comes to teams, collective efficacy is important to ensure high performance.

Self-Managed Work Teams

Composition of Self-Managed Teams. The composition of self-managed teams should be

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

Supporting Self-Managed Teams. Self-managed groups require special support to ensure

• Training. Members of self-managed teams require extensive training. The kind of

Principles for Effectiveness. A number of factors contribute to the effectiveness of cross-

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

Advantages of Virtual Teams. Virtual teams have a number of advantages.

• Trust. Trust is difficult to develop between virtual team members.

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

A review of research on information sharing in virtual teams versus face-to-face

• Recruitment. Choose team members carefully in terms of attitude and personality.

A Word of Caution: Teams as a Panacea

Switching from a traditional structure to a team-based configuration is not a cure-all for

MINI-LECTURE: EXTREME ROLE READINESS

Roles can be extremely powerful determinants of behaviour. Furthermore, role

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

MINI-LECTURE: THE BANK WIRING ROOM

Formal Formation and Structure

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

Informal Formation and Structure

3. Status. According to the organization, selector work was as important as connector

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

SAMPLE ANSWERS TO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

3. Explain how a cross-functional team could contribute to product or service quality.

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Debate: Effective teamwork is more difficult for individualistic Americans,

3. Mark Allen, a representative for an international engineering company, is a very

Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada Inc.

EXTRA DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Discuss the relationship between group size and group performance.

SAMPLE ANSWERS TO INTEGRATIVE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS