Group Performance

Bernard A. Nijstad

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781135217785
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

People interact and perform in group settings in all areas of life. Organizations and businesses are increasingly structuring work around groups and teams. Every day, we work in groups such as families, friendship groups, societies and sports teams, to make decisions and plans, solve problems, perform physical tasks, generate creative ideas, and more.

Group Performance outlines the current state of social psychological theories and findings concerning the performance of groups. It explores the basic theories surrounding group interaction and development and investigates how groups affect their members. Bernard A. Nijstad discusses these issues in relation to the many different tasks that groups may perform, including physical tasks, idea generation and brainstorming, decision-making, problem-solving, and making judgments and estimates. Finally, the book closes with an in-depth discussion of teamwork and the context in which groups interact and perform.

Offering an integrated approach, with particular emphasis on the interplay between group members, the group task, interaction processes and context, this book provides a state-of-the-art overview of social psychological theory and research. It will be highly valuable to undergraduates, graduates and researchers in social psychology, organizational behavior and business.

1
Studying small groups

In 1961, the US President John F.Kennedy and his group of advisors made a disastrous decision: They decided to invade Cuba. Since 1959, Cuba had been ruled by the communist regime of Fidel Castro, much to the dislike of the USA. Kennedy and his advisors therefore took up a risky plan. They used a brigade of recruited Cuban exiles, supported them with weapons and transportation, and dropped them in Cuba, in a place known as the Bay of Pigs. The Bay of Pigs invasion, however, was a complete failure. Within days, all 1,300 troops were killed or arrested.

Later analysis showed that the fiasco was due to faulty decision-making by Kennedy and his advisors. Janis (1972, 1982) analyzed the Bay of Pigs invasion as an example of groupthink (see Chapter 7 for a more elaborate discussion). Janis was interested in the question of why a group of smart people, such as Kennedy and his advisors, could make such a bad decision. He reasoned that it was due to certain group processes, and coined the term “groupthink”: “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (Janis, 1972, p. 9). The essence of groupthink lies in excessive concurrence-seeking: Group members try to maintain consensus and group harmony, and refrain from criticism or counter-argumentation against the alternative that is favored by the group. Because group members do not critically appraise the alternatives, and everyone appears to agree with the proposed decision, they run the risk of convincing themselves to adopt a course of action that normally would be perceived as inadequate or even dangerous.

Only one year later, in 1962, President Kennedy and his group (Figure 1.1) faced a new crisis. The intelligence agencies had found out that the Soviet Union was shipping nuclear weapons to Cuba. There were air-photographs that showed new missile bases. Also, there were Soviet ships on the way to Cuba, and these ships probably

FIGURE 1.1. President Kennedy with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (left) and Secretary of State Dean Rusk (center), three of the main characters during the Cuban Missile Crisis (seen on 10 December 1962, just after the crisis; photograph by Cecil Stoughton).

carried nuclear warheads. Clearly, this presented a great risk to the USA. Furthermore, if not handled carefully, the so-called Cuba crisis might easily end in World War III. President Kennedy and his group considered different alternatives, including a new attack on Cuba. Eventually they decided on a blockade of Cuban ports with navy ships. Their strategy was successful and the Soviet ships turned around, possibly preventing a full-blown nuclear war. Later, the Soviet Union agreed to retract its missiles from Cuba, while the USA would retract its missiles from Turkey. Clearly, President Kennedy and his group had this time made the right decision.¹

Political decisions, like the ones described above, are often made in groups, and can have far-reaching consequences (including war and peace). Many other tasks are also done in groups: Groups of students write a paper together, companies structure their work around teams, management teams decide about the future of an organization, friends organize a party, and many sports are played in teams. The topic of this book is performance of these groups. One of the most important questions is what determines group effectiveness. Why do some group decisions lead to complete fiascos (the Bay of Pigs invasion), whereas others are extremely effective (the Cuban missile crisis decision)? Why do some teams perform poorly, whereas others perform very well? How well do groups perform their tasks as compared to individuals: Who is more creative, who makes the better decisions, and who is the better problem-solver? How do individual member capabilities relate to the performance of the group as a whole? How does the environment of groups shape their performance? These questions will be addressed.

In this first chapter, we first clarify what in the context of this book is a “group.” Second, we discuss the different functions that groups may have for their members. Third, we go into the ways that groups can be studied scientifically. We close with an overview of the book.

1 The 2000 movie Thirteen Days (directed by Roger Donaldson; with Bruce Greenwood playing John F.Kennedy and Kevin Costner playing one of his advisors) is based on the Cuba crisis.

Defining groups

Entitativity

Many authors have suggested definitions of groups. Lewin (1948) suggested that common fate is critical: people are a group when they experience similar outcomes. For example, a group in an organization might be collectively rewarded for performing well. Sherif and Sherif (1969) proposed that some form of social structure (status or role differentiation, e.g., a leadership role) is essential, because otherwise the “group” would just be a loose collection of individuals. Bales (1950) emphasized face-to-face interaction, and argued that a group requires that members meet on a regular basis. Tajfel (1981) emphasized shared identity, and argued that groups exist when members identify with their group.

Rather than giving a black-and-white definition of groups, it might be more useful to view “groupiness” as a dimension on which collections of individuals can vary (see also McGrath, 1984; Moreland, 1987): Some groups are more “groupy” than others. Instead of “groupiness,” researchers often use the term “group entitativity.” Group entitativity refers to the degree to which a collection of persons is perceived as being bonded together in a coherent unit (Campbell, 1958). In fact, common fate, social structure, face-to-face interaction, and shared identity may all contribute to group entitativity (see also McGrath, 1984).

This approach assumes that having certain properties makes certain collections of individuals more entitative: The more of these properties it possesses, the more entitative the group is. It is similar to classifying animals as birds. An animal becomes more bird-like when it has certain properties, such as that it can fly, has feathers, has a beak, lays eggs, and so on. However, some birds do not have all these properties (e.g., ostriches cannot fly, penguins have no feathers) and they still are birds, although less bird-like than a robin (which has all these properties and is a very prototypical bird). Similarly, some groups may not have certain properties (e.g., they never meet, or they don’t experience common fate) but can still be considered groups. But which properties make groups more entitative?

Group properties

Table 1.1 lists some important group properties. Some of these speak for themselves, such as group size and duration. Group structure

TABLE 1.1 Important group characteristics

(including status differences and role differentiation) will be discussed in the next chapter. We will discuss the others here.

Interdependence

One property on which groups vary is the degree to which group members are interdependent. Interdependence refers to situations in which a group member’s individual performance or outcomes depend not only on the actions of that individual, but also on the actions of other members. Task interdependence refers to the degree to which group members are mutually dependent on one another to accomplish their tasks. For example, a forward player in a football team is dependent on the actions of others players: They have to pass the ball to allow the forward to score. Outcome interdependence refers to the degree to which group members are mutually dependent to receive valued outcomes (e.g., money or praise). A football team, for example, would receive a better ranking and more praise after winning a game. Winning a game (and thus receiving these outcomes) is dependent not only on a team member’s own actions, but also on the actions of the other members. Task and outcome interdependence often co-occur, but this is not always the case (see Chapter 9).

Importance

Importance refers to how important the group is for its members. Groups can be important for members not only because they have a task to perform; rather, being in a group can have a number of consequences for group members. These are discussed in more detail in the next section, on functions of groups.

Interaction

Interaction refers to some form of (verbal or nonverbal) communication among group members. Do they interact frequently, or not so often? Interaction can be face to face, but can also involve discussions on the internet, telephone conversations, and so on (Chapter 11). When group members are highly dependent on one another, usually more interaction within the group is required to coordinate group members’ activities.

Permeability

Permeability refers to how easy or difficult it is to enter or leave the group. Is group membership relatively stable, or do frequent changes occur? Further, some groups are elite, or have very high status, and these groups usually are not very permeable. For example, it is very difficult to join the All England Tennis Club—the club that organizes the Wimbledon tennis tournament—which is the tennis club in Britain with the highest status (but winning a singles title at Wimbledon would also win you membership).

Similarity

Group membership is often based on similarity. People form certain groups because they are similar: They all like playing chess and start a chess club, or they all are psychologists and form a psychology department. Further, outsiders tend to categorize similar people together (e.g., they talk about the “people from marketing” as if they were a group) (Campbell, 1958). Finally, it is important to note that people who are similar usually also like one another more than people who are dissimilar (Byrne, 1971; Newcomb, 1956).

BOX 1.1. Cohesion and performance

One long-standing issue in social psychology concerns the relation between group cohesion and performance (Mullen & Copper, 1994). Often, people think that cohesion will lead to better performance: When group members value their group, they will work hard to perform well! However, results regarding the relation between cohesion and performance are inconclusive. For example, of the 34 studies reviewed by Stogdill (1972), 12 studies indicated that cohesive groups were more productive, 11 indicated that cohesive groups were less productive, and in the remaining 11 studies there was no relation between cohesion and performance. Clearly, things are more complex.

One possibility is that the relation between cohesion and performance depends on other factors. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Ahearne (1997) argued that the relation between cohesion and performance would depend on group goal acceptance. They reasoned that if a group accepts their performance goals (they agree with the goals that were given to them by their management) there should be a positive relation between group cohesion and performance, because cohesion will motivate members to work hard towards these performance goals. However, if the group does not accept the performance goals, this relation should not be found, because group cohesion will not motivate people to work toward goals that they do not accept.

Podsakoff et al. (1997) tested this hypothesis in a survey study among workers of a paper mill. They asked 218 employees of the paper mill, who worked in 40 different groups, to fill out a questionnaire. In this questionnaire, there were questions about group cohesion (e.g., “We like working in this group”) and about goal acceptance (e.g., “We feel that our goals are fair”). Employees were asked to rate the questions on rating scales, making it possible to quantify these variables. Data regarding group performance came from company records. The company kept track of each team’s performance as a percentage of machine capacity. Thus, groups could maximally perform at 100 per cent of machine capacity, but lower scores were also possible.

Figure 1.2 shows Podsakoff et al.’s findings. ...

Table of contents

• Contents
• Series preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Studying small groups
• 2 Group processes and social influence
• 3 A theoretical framework
• 4 Audience and co-action effects
• 5 Motivation and group performance: Individual effort on collective tasks
• 6 Group idea generation and creativity
• 7 Group decision-making
• 8 Group problem-solving and group judgment
• 9 Teamwork and leadership
• 10 Groups in context
• 11 Groups and technology
• Glossary
• References
• Author index
• Subject index