Essentials 1st Edition Robbins

Solutions Manual
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankdeal.com/download/essentials-1st-edition-robbins-solutions-manual/
 CHAPTER 7
UNDERSTANDING GROUP & TEAM BEHAVIOUR

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this chapter, you should be able to answer the following questions:
1. How do formal groups differ from informal groups?
2. What are the different stages in group development?
3. How do role requirements change in different situations?
4. What influence do norms exert on an individual’s behaviour?
5. What determines status?
6. What is social loafing, and how does it affect group performance?
7. What are the benefits and disadvantages of cohesive groups?
8. What are the strengths and weaknesses of group decision making?
9. How would you contrast the effectiveness of interacting, brainstorming, nominal and
electronic meeting groups?
10. How do teams differ from groups?
11. How do you create an effective team?

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Defining and Classifying Groups

1. A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have
come together to achieve particular objectives.
2. Groups can be either formal or informal.
• Formal groups—those defined by the organisation’s structure, with designated
work assignments establishing tasks.
• The behaviours that one should engage in are stipulated by and directed toward
organisational goals.
• An airline flight crew is an example of a formal group.
• Informal groups—alliances that are neither formally structured nor
organisationally determined
• Natural formations in the work environment in response to the need for social
contact.
• Three employees from different departments who regularly eat lunch together is
an informal group.
3. It is possible to sub-classify groups as command, task, interest, or friendship groups.
• Command groups are determined by the organisation chart, and are composed of
the individuals who report to a given manager.
• Task groups are also organisationally determined and represent those working
together to complete a job task. A task group’s boundaries are not limited to its
immediate hierarchical superior. It can cross command relationships. All
command groups are also task groups, but the reverse need not be true.
• An interest group. People who affiliate to attain a specific objective with which
each is concerned. For example employees who band together to have their
holiday schedules altered

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-1
 • Friendship groups often develop because the individual members have one or
more common characteristics. Social alliances, which frequently extend outside
the work situation, can be based on similar age or ethnic heritage.
4. Informal groups satisfy their members’ social needs.
• These types of interactions among individuals, even though informal, deeply
affect their behaviour and performance.
• There is no single reason why individuals join groups.
• Table 7.1 summarises the most popular reasons people have for joining groups

The Five Stage Model of Group Development

Groups generally pass through a standardised sequence in their evolution (See Figure 7.1)
1. Forming:
• Characterised by a great deal of uncertainty about the group’s purpose, structure, and
leadership.
• Members are trying to determine what types of behaviour are acceptable.
• Stage is complete when members have begun to think of themselves as part of a group.
2. Storming:
• One of intragroup conflict. Members accept the existence of the group, but there is resistance
to constraints on individuality.
• Conflict over who will control the group.
• When complete, there will be a relatively clear hierarchy of leadership within the group.
3. Norming:
• One in which close relationships develop and the group demonstrates cohesiveness.
• There is now a strong sense of group identity and camaraderie.
• Stage is complete when the group structure solidifies and the group has assimilated a common
set of expectations of what defines correct member behaviour.
4. Performing:
• The structure at this point is fully functional and accepted.
• Group energy has moved from getting to know and understand each other to performing.
• For permanent work groups, performing is the last stage in their development.
5. Adjourning:
• For temporary committees, teams, task forces, and similar groups that have a limited task to
perform, there is an adjourning stage.
• In this stage, the group prepares for its disbandment. Attention is directed toward wrapping up
activities.
• Responses of group members vary in this stage. Some are upbeat, basking in the group’s
accomplishments. Others may be depressed over the loss of camaraderie and friendships.
6. Many assume that a group becomes more effective as it progresses through the first four stages.
While generally true, what makes a group effective is more complex. Under some conditions,
high levels of conflict are conducive to high group performance.

7. Groups do not always proceed clearly from one stage to the next. Sometimes several
stages go on simultaneously, as when groups are storming and performing. Groups even
occasionally regress to previous stages.
8. Another problem is that it ignores organisational context. For instance, a study of a
cockpit crew in an airliner found that, within ten minutes, three strangers assigned to fly
together for the first time had become a high-performing group.

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-2
9. The strong organisational context provides the rules, task definitions, information, and
resources needed for the group to perform.

Group Properties: Roles, Norms, Status, Size and Cohesiveness

Introduction
Work groups have properties that shape the behaviour of members and make it possible to explain and
predict a large portion of individual behaviour within the group as well as the performance of the
group itself.

A. Roles
• All group members are actors, each playing a role.
• Roles are a set of expected behaviour patterns attributed to someone occupying a given
position in a social unit.
• We are required to play a number of diverse roles, both on and off our jobs.
1. Role identity
• There are certain attitudes and actual behaviours consistent with a role, and they create the
role identity.
• People have the ability to shift roles rapidly when they recognise that the situation and its
demands clearly require major changes.
• For instance, when union stewards were promoted to supervisory positions, it was found that
their attitudes changed from pro-union to pro-management within a few months of their
promotion.
2. Role perception
• One’s view of how one is supposed to act in a given situation is a role perception.
• We get these perceptions from stimuli all around us—friends, books, movies, television.
• The primary reason that apprenticeship programs exist is to allow beginners to watch an
“expert,” so that they can learn to act as they are supposed to.
3. Role expectations
• How others believe you should act in a given situation.
• How you behave is determined to a large extent by the role defined in the context in which
you are acting.
• The psychological contract is an unwritten agreement that exists between employees and their
employer.
• It sets out mutual expectations—what management expects from workers, and vice versa.
• It defines the behavioural expectations that go with every role.
• If role expectations as implied are not met:
o If management is derelict in keeping up its part of the bargain, we can expect negative
repercussions on employee performance and satisfaction.
o When employees fail to live up to expectations, the result is usually some form of
disciplinary action up to and including firing.

4. Role conflict:
• Role conflict results when an individual is confronted by divergent role expectations.
• It exists when compliance with one role requirement may make more difficult the compliance
with another.
• At the extreme, it would include situations in which two or more role expectations are
mutually contradictory.

B. Norms

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-3
 1. All groups have norms—acceptable standards of behaviour that are shared by the group’s
members.
2. Norms tell members what they ought and ought not to do under certain circumstances.
3. From an individual’s standpoint, they tell what is expected of you in certain situations.

2. Common Types of Norms

• A work group’s norms are unique, yet there are still some common classes of norms.
• Performance norms are probably the most common class of norms.
• Explicit cues on how hard they should work, how to get the job done, their level of output,
appropriate levels of tardiness, and the like.
• These norms are extremely powerful in affecting an individual employee’s performance.
• Appearance norms include things like appropriate dress, loyalty to the work group or
organisation, when to look busy, and when it is acceptable to ‘bludge’.
• Social arrangement norms come from informal work groups and primarily regulate social
interactions within the group.
• Allocation of resources norms can originate in the group or in the organisation.
• These norms cover things such as pay, assignment of difficult jobs, and allocation of new
tools and equipment.

4. Conformity
• As a member of a group, you desire acceptance by the group. Because of your desire for
acceptance, you are susceptible to conforming to the group’s norms.
• There is considerable evidence that groups can place strong pressures on individual members
to change their attitudes and behaviours to conform to the group’s standard.
• Individuals conform to the important groups to which they belong or hope to belong. The
important groups are referred to as reference groups.
• The reference group is characterised as one where the person is aware of the others; the person
defines himself or herself as a member, or would like to be a member; and the person feels
that the group members are significant to him/her.
• All groups do not impose equal conformity pressures on their members.

5. Deviant Workplace Behaviour

• This term is also called also called antisocial behaviour or workplace Incivility.
• It is defined as voluntary behaviour that violates significant organisational norms and, in
doing so, threatens the well-being of the organisation or its members.
• Table 7.2 presents a typology of deviant workplace behaviours and examples.
• Some organisations create or condone conditions that encourage and maintain deviant norms.
o Rudeness and disregard towards others by bosses and co-workers is on the rise and 12
percent of those who experienced it actually quit their jobs.
• Individual employees’ antisocial actions are shaped by the group context within which they
work. Evidence demonstrates that deviant workplace behaviour is likely to flourish where it is
supported by group norms.
• When deviant workplace norms surface, employee cooperation, commitment and motivation
are likely to suffer. This, in turn, can lead to reduced employee productivity and job
satisfaction and increased turnover.
• A recent study suggests that, compared to individuals working alone, those working in a group
were more likely to lie, cheat and steal (Figure 7.2).
• Groups provide a shield of anonymity so that someone who ordinarily might be afraid of
getting caught for stealing can rely on the fact that other group members had the same
opportunity or reason to steal.

C. Status

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-4
1. Status is a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others. We live
in a class-structured society despite all attempts to make it more egalitarian.
• Status is an important factor in understanding human behaviour, because it is a significant
motivator and has major behavioural consequences when individuals perceive a disparity
between what they believe their status to be and what others perceive it to be.
2. What Determines Status?
• Status characteristics theory – differences in status characteristics create status hierarchies
within groups.
• Status derived from one of three sources: the power a person wields over others; a person’s
ability to contribute to group’s goals; individual’s personal characteristics.
o People who control the outcomes of a group through their power tend to be perceived
as high in status (e.g., a group’s formal leader or manager).
o People whose contributions are critical to the group’s success also tend to have high
status (e.g., outstanding performers on sports teams).
o Someone who has personal characteristics that are positively valued by the group
(such as good looks, intelligence, money or a friendly personality) will typically have
higher status than someone who has fewer valued attributes.

5. Status Inequity:
• When inequity is perceived, it creates disequilibrium that results in corrective behaviour.
• The concept of equity applies to status. People expect rewards to be proportionate to costs
incurred.
• The trappings of formal positions are also important elements in maintaining equity. When
we believe there is an inequity between the perceived ranking of an individual and the status
accoutrements that person is given by the organisation, we are experiencing status
incongruence.
• Groups generally agree within themselves on status criteria.
• However, individuals can find themselves in a conflict situation when they move between
groups whose status criteria are different or when they join groups whose members have
heterogeneous backgrounds.
• This can be a particular problem when management creates teams made up of employees from
across varied functions within the organisation.

D. Size

1. The size of a group affects the group’s overall behaviour, but the effect depends on the dependent
variables we look at:
• Smaller groups are faster at completing tasks than are larger ones.
• If the group is engaged in problem solving, large groups consistently do better.
• Large groups—a dozen or more members—are good for gaining diverse input.
• Smaller groups—five to seven members— tend to be more effective for taking action.
2. Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than
when working individually.
• It directly challenges the logic that the productivity of the group as a whole should at least
equal the sum of the productivity of each individual in that group.

3. Causes of social loafing:

• A belief that others in the group are not carrying their fair share.
• The dispersion of responsibility: when the results of the group cannot be attributed to any
single person, the relationship between an individual’s input and the group’s output is
clouded.

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-5
 o There will be a reduction in efficiency where individuals think that their contribution
cannot be measured.
4. Implications for OB:
• Where managers use collective work situations to enhance morale and teamwork, they must
also provide means by which individual efforts can be identified.
• If this is not done, management must weigh the potential losses in productivity from using
groups against any possible gains in worker satisfaction.
5. Other conclusions from research on group size:
• Groups with an odd number of members tend to be preferable.
o They eliminate the possibility of ties when votes are taken.
• Groups made up of five or seven members do a pretty good job of exercising the best elements
of both small and large groups.
o Large enough to form a majority and allow for diverse input
o Small enough to avoid the negative outcomes often associated with large groups, such as
domination by a few members, development of subgroups, inhibited participation by some
members, and excessive time taken to reach a decision.

E. Cohesiveness

1. Groups differ in their cohesiveness - the degree to which members are attracted to each other and
are motivated to stay in the group.

2. Cohesiveness is important because it has been found to be related to the group’s productivity.

3. The relationship of cohesiveness and productivity depends on the performance-related norms

established by the group (Figure 7.3):
• If performance-related norms are high, a cohesive group will be more productive.
• If cohesiveness is high and performance norms are low, productivity will be low.

4. How to encourage group cohesiveness:

• Make the group smaller.
• Encourage agreement with group goals.
• Increase the time members spend together.
• Increase the status of the group and the perceived difficulty of attaining membership in the
group.
• Stimulate competition with other groups.
• Give rewards to the group rather than to individual members.
• Physically isolate the group.

Group Decision Making

A. Group Versus the Individual

Decision-making groups may be widely used in organisations, whether or not they are preferable to
individual decisions depends on many factors.

1. Strengths of group decision-making:

• Groups generate more complete information and knowledge.
o Groups bring more input into the decision process.
o Groups can bring heterogeneity to the decision process.
• Groups offer increased diversity of views.
o This opens up the opportunity for more approaches and alternatives to be considered.

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-6
 • Groups lead to increased acceptance of a solution.
o Group members who participated in making a decision are likely to enthusiastically
support the decision and encourage others to accept it.
2. Weaknesses of group decision-making:
• They are time consuming.
• There is a conformity pressure in groups.
• Group discussion can be dominated by one or a few members.
• Group decisions suffer from ambiguous responsibility.
3. Effectiveness and efficiency:
• Whether groups are more effective than individuals depends on the criteria you use.
• In terms of accuracy, group decisions will tend to be more accurate.
• On the average, groups make better-quality decisions than individuals.
• If decision effectiveness is defined in terms of speed, individuals are superior.
• If creativity is important, groups tend to be more effective than individuals.
• If effectiveness means the degree of acceptance the final solution achieves, groups are better.
4. Efficiency
• Groups almost always stack up as a poor second to the individual decision maker.
• The exceptions tend to be those instances where, to achieve comparable quantities of diverse
input, the single decision maker must spend a great deal of time reviewing files and talking to
people.

5. Summary
• Groups offer an excellent vehicle for performing many of the steps in the decision-making
process.
• They are a source of both breadth and depth of input for information gathering.
• When the final solution is agreed upon, there are more people in a group decision to support
and implement it.
• Group decisions consume time, create internal conflicts, and generate pressures toward
conformity.

B. Groupthink and Groupshift

• Groupthink and groupshift are two by-products of group decision-making. Briefly, the
differences between the two are:
• Groupthink is related to norms. It describes situations in which group pressures for conformity
deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views.
• Groupthink is a disease that attacks many groups and can dramatically hinder performance.
• Groupshift is a change in decision risk. It indicates that in discussing a given set of alternatives
and arriving at a solution, group members tend to exaggerate the initial positions that they hold.
In some situations, caution dominates, and there is a conservative shift.
• The evidence indicates that groups tend toward a risky shift.

C. Group Decision-Making Techniques

1. Most group decision making takes place in interacting groups

• In these groups, members meet face to face and rely on both verbal and nonverbal interaction
to communicate with each other.
• Interacting groups often censor themselves and pressure individual members toward
conformity of opinion.
• Brainstorming, the nominal group technique, and electronic meetings have been proposed as
ways to reduce many of the problems inherent in the traditional interacting group.

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-7
2. Brainstorming
• It is meant to overcome pressures for conformity in the interacting group that retard the
development of creative alternatives. It does this by utilising an idea-generation process that
specifically encourages any and all alternatives while withholding any criticism of those
alternatives.
• In a typical brainstorming session, a half dozen to a dozen people sit around a table.
• The process:
• The group leader states the problem clearly.
• Members then “free-wheel” as many alternatives as they can in a given length of
time. No criticism is allowed, and all the alternatives are recorded for later
discussion and analysis.
• One idea stimulates others, and group members are encouraged to “think the
unusual.”
• Brainstorming may indeed generate ideas, but not very efficiently.
o Research consistently shows that individuals working along will generate more ideas
than a group because of ‘production blocking’.
o When there are many people talking at once it blocks the through process and
eventually impedes the sharing of ideas.
3. The nominal group technique
• Restricts discussion or interpersonal communication during the decision-making process.
• Group members are all physically present, but members operate independently.
• Specifically, a problem is presented, and then the following steps take place:
• Members meet as a group but, before any discussion takes place, each member
independently writes down his or her ideas on the problem.
• After this silent period, each member presents one idea to the group. Each member
takes his or her turn.
• The group now discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them.
• Each group member silently and independently rank-orders the ideas.
• The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision.
• The advantage of the nominal group technique is that it permits the group to meeting formally
but doesn’t restrict independent thinking.

4. Electronic meeting
• The computer-assisted group or electronic meeting blends the nominal group technique with
sophisticated computer technology.
• Once the technology is in place, the concept is simple. Up to 50 people sit around a
horseshoe-shaped table, empty except for a series of computer terminals.
• Issues are presented to participants, and they type their responses onto their computer screen.
• Individual comments, as well as aggregate votes, are displayed on a projection screen.
• The proposed advantages of electronic meetings are anonymity, honesty and speed.
• The early evidence, however, indicates that electronic meetings don’t achieve most of their
proposed benefits. Evaluations of numerous studies found that electronic meetings:
o actually led to decreased group effectiveness
o required more time to complete tasks
o resulted in reduced member satisfaction when compared to face-to-face groups.

• Table 7.3 offers an evaluation of the different types of group decision making techniques and
the effectiveness of the decision.

Creating Effective Teams

Introduction

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-8
Work teams are different from work groups (See Figure 7.4).

1. A work group is a group that interacts primarily to share information and to make decisions to
help each member perform within his or her area of responsibility. Work groups have no need or
opportunity to engage in collective work that requires joint effort. Their performance is the
summation of each group member’s individual contribution. There is no positive synergy to
create an overall performance grater than the sum of the inputs.
2. Work teams, are able to leverage positive synergies through individual complementarities and a
coordinated effort, which creates an overall level of performance that is greater than the sum of
the inputs.

1. Factors for creating effective teams have been summarised in the model found in Figure 7.5.
2 The discussion is based on the above model. There are two caveats:
• First, teams differ in form and structure—be careful not to rigidly apply the model’s
predictions to all teams.
• Second, the model assumes that it is already been determined that teamwork is preferable over
individual work.

3. The four key components for an effective are:

• Context
• Composition
• Work design
• Process.

Team effectiveness in this model means objective measures of the team’s productivity,
managers’ ratings of the team’s performance, and aggregate measures of member satisfaction.

A. Context

There are four contextual factors that appear to be most significantly are related to team performance:

1. Adequate resources:
• All work teams rely on resources outside the group to sustain it.
• A scarcity of resources directly reduces the ability of the team to perform its job
effectively.
• As one set of researchers concluded, “Perhaps one of the most important characteristics
of an effective work group is the support the group receives from the organisation.”

2. Leadership and structure:

• Agreeing on the specifics of work and how they fit together to integrate individual
skills requires team leadership and structure.
• Leadership is not always needed. Self-managed work teams often perform better than
teams with formally appointed leaders, and leaders can obstruct high performance
when they interfere with self-managing teams
• On traditionally managed teams, we find that two factors seem influence team
performance, the leader’s expectations and his or her mood, leaders who expect good
things from their team are more likely to get them.

3. Climate of Trust:
• Members of effective teams trust each other and exhibit trust in their leaders.

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-9
 • Interpersonal trust among team members facilitates cooperation, reduces the need to
monitor each member’s behaviour, and bonds members around the belief that others
on the team won’t take advantage of them.
• When members trust their leadership they are more willing to commit to their
leader’s goals and decisions.

4. Performance evaluation and reward systems:

• How do you get team members to be both individually and jointly accountable? The
traditional, individually oriented evaluation and reward system must be modified to
reflect team performance.
• Individual performance evaluations, fixed hourly wages, individual incentives are not
consistent with the development of high-performance teams.
• Management should consider group-based appraisals, profit sharing, gainsharing,
small-group incentives, and other system modifications that will reinforce team effort
and commitment.

B. Composition

1. Abilities of members:
• Part of a team’s performance depends on the knowledge, skills and abilities of its individual
members.
• Teams require three different types of skills, technical expertise, problem-solving and
decision-making skills, good listening, feedback, conflict resolution, and other interpersonal
skills
• The right mix is crucial. It is not uncommon for one or more members to take
responsibility to learn the skills in which the group is deficient, thereby allowing the team
to reach its full potential.
• When the task entails considerable thought, high-ability teams (teams composed of mostly
intelligent members) do better, especially when the workload is distributed evenly.
• When tasks are simple, high-ability teams don’t perform as well, perhaps because, in such
tasks, high-ability teams become bored and turn their attention to other activities that are
more stimulating, whereas low-ability teams stay on task.
• Smart team leaders help less intelligent team members when they struggle with a task. But a
less intelligent leader can neutralise the effect of a high-ability team.

2. Personality:
• Many of the dimensions identified in the Big Five personality model have shown to be
relevant to team effectiveness.
• Teams that rate higher in mean levels of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
emotional stability tend to receive higher managerial ratings for team performance.
• The variance in personality characteristics may be more important than the mean. A single
team member who lacks a minimal level of, say, agreeableness can negatively affect the
whole team’s performance.
• Conscientious people are valuable because they are good at ‘backing up’ fellow team
members, and they are also good at sensing when that support is truly needed.
• It is best to staff teams with people who are extraverted, agreeable, conscientious,
emotionally stable and open.

3. Allocating roles
• Teams have different needs, and people should be selected for a team to ensure that there is
diversity and that all various roles are filled.
• Managers need to understand the individual strengths that each person can bring to a team,
select members with their strengths in mind, and allocate work assignments accordingly.

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-10
4. Diversity
• Most team activities require a variety of skills and knowledge, therefore on cognitive,
creativity-demanding tasks, teams on cognitive, creativity-demanding tasks are more
effective.
• Diversity in terms of personality, gender, age, education, functional specialisation, and
experience increase the probability that the team will complete its tasks effectively.
• The team may be more conflict laden and less expedient but more effective than a
homogeneous team.
• One study found that white males performed the worst relative to mixed race and gender
teams, or teams of only females.
• Over time, however, culturally diverse teams function effectively over time.
• The degree to which members of a group share common characteristics such as age, sex, race
educational level, or length of service, is termed group demography.
• Groups, teams and organisations are comprised of cohorts, which are defined as individuals
who hold a common attribute.
• Research on cohort differences suggests that the composition of a team may be an important
predictor of turnover. Large differences in a single team will lead to turnover, whereas if
everyone is moderately dissimilar the feelings of being an outsider are reduced.

5. Size of teams:
• Generally speaking, the most effective teams have fewer than ten people. Four to five people
may be necessary to develop the diversity of views and skills.
• Large teams have difficulty getting much done and have trouble coordinating with one
another, especially when time pressure is present.

6. Member flexibility:
• This is an obvious plus because it greatly improves its adaptability and makes it less reliant on
any single member.
7. Member preferences:
• Not every employee is a team player.
• Given the option, many employees will select themselves out of team participation.
• High performing teams are likely to be composed of people who prefer working as part of a
group.

Instructor Note: See the box “Applying the Knowledge - Shaping Team Players” on p. 207
to review managers’ options for turning individuals into team players.

C. Work Design

1. Effective teams need to work together and take collective responsibility to complete significant
tasks.

2. The work-design category includes variables like freedom and autonomy, the opportunity to
utilise different skills and talents, the ability to complete a whole and identifiable task or product,
and working on a task or project that has a substantial impact on others.

3. The evidence indicates that work-design characteristics enhance member motivation and increase
team effectiveness.

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-11
D. Process

Processes are important to team effectiveness because of their effect on social loafing and synergy
(Figure 7.7).

1. A Common Purpose:
• Effective teams have a common and meaningful purpose that provides direction, momentum,
and commitment for members.
• This purpose is a vision. It is broader than specific goals.

2. Specific goals:
• Successful teams translate their common purpose into specific, measurable, and realistic
performance goals. They energise the team.
• Specific goals facilitate clear communication and help teams maintain their focus on results.
Team goals should be challenging.
• Team goals should be challenging, to raise team performance on those criteria for which they
are set.

3. Team efficacy:
• Effective teams have confidence in themselves and believe they can succeed—this is team
efficacy. Success breeds success.
• Management can increase team efficacy by helping the team to achieve small successes and
skill training. Small successes build team confidence.
• Providing training to improve members’ technical and interpersonal skills can also assist: the
greater the abilities of team members, the greater the likelihood that the team will develop
confidence and the capability to deliver that confidence.

4. Conflict levels:
• Conflict on a team is not necessarily bad. Teams that are completely void of conflict are
likely to become apathetic and stagnant.
• Relationship conflicts—those based on interpersonal incompatibilities, tension, and animosity
toward others—are almost always dysfunctional.
• On teams performing non-routine activities, disagreements among members about task
content (called task conflicts) is not detrimental. It is often beneficial because it lessens the
likelihood of groupthink.

5. Social loafing:
• Individuals can hide inside a group. Effective teams undermine this tendency by holding
themselves accountable at both the individual and team level.

Instructor Note: Students should complete the Self-Assessment Exercise II.B.6 “How Good
Am I At Building And Leading A Team” The results from this exercise directly relate to the
chapter material.

Students should consider the following after they have completed the exercises:
• Did you score as high as you though you would? Why or why not?
• Do you think your score can be improved? If so, how? If not, why not?
• Do you think there are team players? If yes, what are their behaviours?

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-12
Applying the knowledge: Shaping Team Players (p. 207)

The following summarises the primary options managers have for trying to turn individuals into team
players.

1. Selection:
• Some people already possess the interpersonal skills to be effective team players. Care should
be taken to ensure that candidates could fulfil their team roles as well as technical
requirements.
• Many job candidates do not have team skills:
• This is especially true for those socialised around individual contributions.
• The candidates can undergo training to “make them into team players.”
• In established organisations that decide to redesign jobs around teams, it should be
expected that some employees will resist being team players and may be untrainable.

2. Training:
• A large proportion of people raised on the importance of individual accomplishment can be
trained to become team players.
• Workshops help employees improve their problem-solving, communication, negotiation,
conflict-management, and coaching skills.
• Employees also learn the five-stage group development model.

3. Rewards:
• The reward system needs to encourage cooperative efforts rather than competitive ones.
Promotions, pay raises, and other forms of recognition should be given to individuals for how
effective they are as a collaborative team member.
• This does not mean individual contribution is ignored; rather, it is balanced with selfless
contributions to the team.
• There are other intrinsic rewards to being on a team. One example is that teams provide
camaraderie:
• It is exciting and satisfying to be an integral part of a successful team.
• The opportunity to engage in personal development

Instructor Note: The Student Challenge (p. 205) describes the problem a managers faces
when the team at hand is casual, after-school, or uni students. This relates directly to the
teams’ composition (no formal training in task performance), and to the process concept.
Have the students read this challenge in groups and think of effective ways to address this
team’s performance.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS

• A number of group properties show a relationship to performance such as role perception,

norms, status differences, group size and cohesiveness.
• Norms control group-member behaviour by establishing standards of right and wrong. The
norms of a given group can help to explain the behaviours of its members, for norms control
group-member behaviour by establishing standards of right and wrong. The norms of a given
group can help to explain the behaviours of its members for managers. When norms support
high output, managers can expect individual performance to be markedly higher than when

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-13
 group norms aim to restrict output. Similarly, norms that support antisocial behaviour
increase the likelihood that individuals will engage in deviant workplace activities.
• Status inequities create frustration and can adversely influence productivity and the
willingness to remain with an organisation. Among individuals who are equity-sensitive,
incongruence is likely to lead to reduced motivation and an increased search for ways to
bring about fairness (that is, taking another job). In addition, because lower-status people
tend to participate less in group discussions, groups characterised by high status differences
among members are likely to inhibit input from the lower-status members and to
underperform their potential.
• Large groups are more effective at fact-finding activities, while smaller groups are more
effective at action-taking tasks. Social loafing knowledge suggests that measures of
individual performance are necessary if larger groups are used.
• Cohesiveness plays an important function in influencing a group’s level of productivity.
• High congruence between boss and employee as to the perception of the employee’s job
shows a significant association with high employee satisfaction. Role conflict is associated
with job induced tension and dissatisfaction.
• Decisions made by groups provide both advantages and disadvantages. •
o Advantages: Group inputs are more comprehensive and more accurate, with more
diverse viewpoints, leading to greater creativity; groups more readily agree on
decisions because of a larger involvement.
o Disadvantages: Decisions are slow and time consuming and build pressures for
conformity; this is especially apparent when a minority dominates the group.
Accountability is also ambiguous.
• Groups can suffer two afflictions:
o groupthink—where highly cohesive groups can diverge from acceptable social
norms; and
o groupshift—where stress is created due to the diverse levels of risk individuals will
tolerate within the group as the eventual level of risk is forced to conform to one
level.
• The shift from working alone to working on teams requires employees to cooperate with
others, share information, confront differences and sublimate personal interests for the greater
good of the team.
• Effective teams have been found to have a number of common characteristics: •
o They have adequate resources, effective leadership, a climate of trust, and a
performance evaluation and reward system that reflects team contributions.
o They are made up of individuals with technical expertise, as well as problem-solving,
decision-making and interpersonal skills; and high scores on the personality
characteristics of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional
stability.
o They tend to be small—with fewer than ten people—preferably made up of
individuals with diverse backgrounds.
o They have members who fill role demands, are flexible and who prefer to be part of a
group. And the work that members do provides freedom and autonomy, the
opportunity to use different skills and talents, the ability to complete a whole and
identifiable task or product, and work that has a substantial impact on others.
o They have members who are committed to a common purpose, specific team goals,
belief in the team’s capabilities, a manageable level of conflict and a minimal degree
of social loafing.
o Because individualistic organisations and societies attract and reward individual
accomplishments, it is more difficult to create team players in these environments.
To make the conversion, management should try to select individuals with the
interpersonal skills to be effective team players, provide training to develop
teamwork skills, and reward individuals for cooperative efforts.

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-14
OB IN PRACTICE
A Team Culture at Hilton

Felicia Liew is the HR director at the Hilton Hotel in Kuching, the capital of the East Malaysian state
of Sarawak, located on the island of Borneo. As a worldwide chain, senior management have the
challenge of guaranteeing the consistent service that customers expect. The hotel has adopted the
Balance Scorecard approach to performance management. Success is based on a team culture
committed to high quality service, a fun family-oriented atmosphere where positive attitudes and a
strong work ethic are rewarded.

Felicia provides a range of training programs for new recruits and existing staff. She deals with
various functional groups and the challenge is not only to develop the necessary skills but also get the
various functional groups to work as effective teams.

Class Exercise:

Most students will have experienced working in a team before, either in their own work experience or
in project teams for their studies.

1. Have students break into small groups of between 3 and 5.

2. In each group have students explore the benefits and challenges of working in a team.
3. Using the above case, how would the students recommend that Felicia begin developing
cohesiveness in the functional teams.
4. Have each group report out to the entire class.

OB IN PRACTICE
Learning from the Experience of Team Management

Glen Simpson is the chief executive of the development division of Coffee International, an
Australian-based engineering company with a number of specialised divisions. As with many global
companies, the challenge of working with and integrating the activities of a diverse range of groups in
different locations and cultures can be daunting.

Personal success needs to be seen in the context of teams and working with others for results. Glen
points out that it is a journey of self-understanding about what motivates and discourages people, and
that it is the simple things that count. Dr Neil Miller’s experience as managing director of Canberra-
based software and services supplier TASKey, realises the need to provide teams with effective
decision support systems so that all members of the team are constantly in touch with the projects they
are working on. TASKey’s real-time task and team management software grew out of Miller’s work
for a PhD on introducing change in organisations. He maintains that project management
methodologies are top-down, designed for the project manager, not the people involved. It’s not
collaborative. TASKey web-based software takes over the detailed management tasks, ensuring that
all team members immediately receive updates on critical project information.

Teaching Note: This article can be used as a guide to a mini research project or group discussion for
students. The vignettes from both managers indicate that collaborative processes are necessary for
many team situations, whereas traditional methodologies are appropriate for leader managed
interactions. How does the student’s experience of team based projects compare? What could be
done to better facilitate student collaborative projects?

MYTH OR SCIENCE?

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-15
 ‘Two Heads are Better Than One’

This statement is mostly true if “better” means that two people will come up with more original and
workable answerers to a problem than one person working alone.

The evidence generally confirms the superiority of groups over individuals in terms of decision-
making quality. Groups usually produce more and better solutions to problems than do individuals
working alone. The choices groups make will be more accurate and creative. Groups bring more
complete information and knowledge to a decision, so they generate more ideas. In addition, the
give-and-take that typically takes place in group decision processes provides diversity of opinion and
increases the likelihood that weak alternatives will be identified and abandoned.

Research indicates that certain conditions favour groups over individuals. They include: 1) Diversity
among members, 2) The group members must be able to communicate their ideas freely and openly,
and 3) The task being undertaken is complex. Relative to individuals, groups do better on complex,
rather than simple tasks.
Class Exercise:
1. This will require you to supply groups with Lego® blocks.
2. Create a simple model—a building, a plane, whatever—because you need to provide Lego to each
team and individual to recreate it. Three-to-eight sets.
3. Count the number of pieces of Lego, diagram the model, noting both the location, size, and colour
of the Lego. This will be your master.
4. Select two teams of three-to-five, and at least three individuals. The rest of the class will observe
and help you.
5. Give the groups and the individuals the same instructions on the exercise. Ask them to tell you
when they have completed the task.
6. Select one student to create a time chart on the board and record when each unit—group or
individual—begins to build and their completion time.
7. Select two students to be “certifiers”; they will go to the individual or team when they are done
and certify the accuracy of their model.
8. Select one student to monitor the model, which needs to be outside of the class, in another
location.

Instructions:
1. This is a timed exercise. They have 30 minutes. The goal is to recreate the model accurately and
quickly.
2. They must visit the model in another room. They may not touch it, but they may sketch it.
3. Teams may assign responsibilities any way they desire; all members may view the model, but only
one at a time.
4. Once they are ready to replicate the model they must notify you, and they may NOT return to the
model again.
5. They must build their replicates in your classroom and cannot take the Lego with them.

Discussion:
1. When you call time, some will be done, some will not, and some will be lost.
2. Discuss what type of task this was—complex or simple.
3. Note the performance, time, and accuracy.
4. Discuss with the class why things turned out as they did. What happened in the groups?

Note to instructor: Generally, teams will be more accurate but take more time. Sometimes, you will
get an individual with a photographic memory who will beat everyone.

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-16
POINT/COUNTERPOINT – All Jobs Should Be Designed Around Groups

POINT
Groups, not individuals, are the ideal building blocks for an organisation. There are at least six reasons
for designing all jobs around groups.
• Small groups are good for people. They can satisfy social needs and they can provide support
for employees in times of stress and crisis.
• Groups are good problem-finding tools. They are better than individuals in promoting
creativity and innovation.
• In a wide variety of decision situations, groups make better decisions than individuals do.
• Groups are very effective tools for implementation. Groups gain commitment from their
members so that group decisions are likely to be willingly and more successfully.
• Groups can control and discipline individual members in ways that are often extremely
difficult through impersonal quasi-legal disciplinary systems. Group norms are powerful
control devices.
• Groups are a means by which large organisations can fend off many of the negative effects of
increased size. Groups help to prevent communication lines from growing too long, the
hierarchy from growing too steep, and the individual from getting lost in the crowd.

Given the above argument for the value of group based job design, what would an organisation look
like that was truly designed around group functions? This might best be considered by merely taking
the things that organisations do with individuals and applying them to groups. Instead of hiring
individuals, they would hire groups. Similarly, they would train groups rather than individuals, pay
groups rather than individuals, promote groups rather than individuals, fire groups rather than
individuals, and so on.

The rapid growth of team-based organisations over the past decade suggests we may well be on our
way toward the day when almost all jobs are designed around groups.

COUNTERPOINT
Designing jobs around groups is consistent with an ideology that says that communal and socialistic
approaches are the best way to organise our society. This might have worked well in the former
Soviet Union or Eastern European countries, but capitalistic countries like Australia, New Zealand, the
United States, Canada and the United Kingdom value the individual. Designing jobs around groups is
inconsistent with the economic values of these countries. Moreover, as capitalism and
entrepreneurship have spread throughout Eastern Europe, we should expect to see less emphasis on
groups and more on the individual in workplaces throughout the world. Cultural and economic values
shape employee attitudes toward groups.

Capitalism was built on the ethic of the individual. Individualistic cultures such as Australia, New
Zealand, Canada and the Unites States strongly value individual achievement. They praise
competition. Even in team sports, they want to identify individuals for recognition. People from these
countries enjoy being part of a group in which they can maintain a strong individual identity. They
don’t enjoy sublimating their identity to that of the group.

The Western industrial worker likes a clear link between his or her individual effort and a visible
outcome. The United States, for example, has a considerably larger proportion of high achievers than
exists in most of the world. America breeds achievers, and achievers seek personal responsibility.
They would be frustrated in job situations in which their contribution is commingled and homogenised
with the contributions of others.

Western workers want to be hired, evaluated, and rewarded on their individual achievements. They
believe in an authority and status hierarchy. They accept a system in which there are bosses and

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-17
subordinates. They are not likely to accept a group’s decision on such issues as their job assignments
and wage increases. It is harder yet to imagine that they would be comfortable in a system in which
the sole basis for their promotion or termination would be the performance of their group.

Based on H. J. Leavitt, “Suppose We Took Groups Seriously,” in E. L. Cass and F. G. Zimmer (eds.),
Man and Work in Society (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1975), pp. 67–77.

Class Exercise:
1. Discuss group versus individual grading with students.
2. Begin by polling them as to whether they would prefer a grade for this class (or another specific
class) based on their individual effort or on the effort of a five-student group they belonged to. The
class mix on this issue will vary.
3. Move the group-based grade students into groups; leave the individual-based grade students. Have
them create a list of three-to-five of the reasons for their preference.
4. After 10–15 minutes, have the group-based students pick a spokesperson and have them record
their lists of the board. Once they are recorded, start an “individual” list by asking the individual
students, one at a time, for a reason, going round robin until you have all of their responses.
5. Now, as a class, compare and discuss the reasons. How are the lists different? The same? Is there a
theme or themes emerging (groups—safety in numbers, it is a hard class; individual—I want
control of my grade, etc.).
6. Ask students if they think the reasons that seem to be emerging would:
• Be acceptable to other students in other classes in your school
• Be acceptable to other students when it came time to interview for jobs
• A way to get ahead in their careers (group effort rather than individual effort being rewarded)

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

1. Compare and contrast command, task, interest, and friendship groups.

Answer – A group is defined as two or more individuals, interacting and interdependent, who have
come together to achieve particular objectives. Groups can be either formal or informal. It is
possible to sub-classify groups as command, task, interest, or friendship groups.
• A command group is determined by the organisation chart. It is composed of direct reports to a
given manager.
• Task groups—organisationally determined, represent those working together to complete a job
task. A task group’s boundaries are not limited to its immediate hierarchical superior. It can cross
command relationships. All command groups are also task groups, but the reverse need not be true.
• An interest group is people who affiliate to attain a specific objective with which each is
concerned. Employees who band together to have their holiday schedules altered.
• Friendship groups often develop because the individual members have one or more common
characteristics. Social alliances, which frequently extend outside the work situation, can be based on
similar age or ethnic heritage.

2. What might motivate you to join a group?

Answer – Informal groups satisfy their members’ social needs.

3. Describe the five-stage group-development model.

Answer – Figure 7.1 shows the five-stage group-development model:
• The first stage is forming. Characterised by a great deal of uncertainty about the group’s
purpose, structure, and leadership. Members are trying to determine what types of behaviour are
acceptable. This stage is complete when members have begun to think of themselves as part of a
group.
• The second stage is storming. Characterised by intragroup conflict. Members accept the
existence of the group, but there is resistance to constraints on individuality. There is conflict over

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-18
who will control the group and when complete, there will be a relatively clear hierarchy of leadership
within the group.
• The third stage is norming. Characterised by close relationships developing and the group
demonstrates cohesiveness. There is now a strong sense of group identity and camaraderie. The
stage is complete when the group structure solidifies and the group has assimilated a common set of
expectations of what defines correct member behaviour.
• The fourth stage is performing. The structure at this point is fully functional and accepted.
Group energy has moved from getting to know and understand each other to performing.
• The fifth stage is Adjourning. Relevant for temporary committees, teams, task forces, and
similar groups that have a limited task to perform. In this stage, the group prepares for its
disbandment. Attention is directed toward wrapping up activities. Responses of group members
vary in this stage. Some are upbeat, basking in the group’s accomplishments. Others may be
depressed over the loss of camaraderie and friendships.

4. How is an individual’s status in a group determined?

Answer – Status is a socially defined position or rank given to groups or group members by others.

Status derived from one of three sources: the power a person wields over others; a person’s ability
to contribute to group’s goals; individual’s personal characteristics.
• People who control the outcomes of a group through their power tend to be perceived as high
in status (e.g., a group’s formal leader or manager).
• People whose contributions are critical to the group’s success also tend to have high status
(e.g., outstanding performers on sports teams).
• Someone who has personal characteristics that are positively valued by the group (such as
good looks, intelligence, money or a friendly personality) will typically have higher status
than someone who has fewer valued attributes.

5. When do groups make better decisions than individuals?

• Answer – The answer is, “it depends.” Groups are more effective in terms of accuracy and
often make better quality decisions than the individual. Groups generate more complete
information and knowledge, offer increased diversity of views, and lead to increased
acceptance of a solution.
However, in terms of speed and efficiency, individuals are more effective.

6. Contrast the pros and cons of having diverse teams?

Answer – Heterogeneous teams comprise members more likely to have diverse abilities and
information and are generally more effective on cognitive and creativity-demanding tasks. The team
may be more conflict laden and less expedient but more effective than homogeneous teams.
Homogeneous white male teams performed the worst relative to mixed race and gender teams or only
females.

7. List and describe the process variables associated with effective team performance.
Answer - These include member commitment to a common purpose, establishment of specific team
goals, team efficacy, a managed level of conflict, and minimising social loafing.
• A common purpose - Effective teams have a common and meaningful purpose that provides
direction, momentum, and commitment for members. This purpose is a vision. It is broader than
specific goals.
• Specific goals - Successful teams translate their common purpose into specific, measurable, and
realistic performance goals. Specific goals facilitate clear communication and help teams maintain
their focus on results. Team goals should be challenging.
• Team efficacy - Effective teams have confidence in themselves and believe they can succeed—
this is team efficacy. Success breeds success. Management can increase team efficacy by helping the
team to achieve small successes and skill training. Small successes build team confidence. The

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-19
greater the abilities of team members, the greater the likelihood that the team will develop confidence
and the capability to deliver on that confidence.
• Conflict levels - Conflict on a team is not necessarily bad. Teams that are completely void of
conflict are likely to become apathetic and stagnant. Relationship conflicts—those based on
interpersonal incompatibilities, tension, and animosity toward others—are almost always
dysfunctional. On teams performing non-routine activities, disagreements among members about task
content (called task conflicts) is not detrimental. It is often beneficial because it lessens the likelihood
of groupthink. Effective teams will be characterised by an appropriate level of conflict.
• Social loafing - Individuals can hide inside a group. Effective teams undermine this tendency by
holding themselves accountable at both the individual and team level.

8. What is groupthink? What is its effect on decision-making quality?

Answer – Groupthink describes situations in which group pressures for conformity deter the group
from critically appraising unusual, minority, or unpopular views. The phenomenon that occurs when
group members become so enamoured of seeking concurrence that the norm for consensus overrides
the realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action and the full expression of deviant, minority, or
unpopular views. It is deterioration in an individual’s mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral
judgment as a result of group pressures. Group members rationalise any resistance to the
assumptions they have made. Members apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express
doubts. Those members who hold differing points of view seek to avoid deviating from group
consensus by keeping silent. There appears to be an illusion of unanimity.

In studies of historic American foreign policy decisions, these symptoms were found to prevail when
government policy-making groups failed. Groupthink appears to be closely aligned with the
conclusions Asch drew from his experiments. Groupthink does not attack all groups. It occurs most
often where there is a clear group identity, where members hold a positive image of their group
which they want to protect, and where the group perceives a collective threat to this positive image.

9. How effective are electronic meetings?

Answer – The early evidence indicates that electronic meetings don’t achieve most of their proposed
benefits. Numerous studies have found that electronic meetings actually lead to a decreased group
effectiveness, required more time to complete tasks, and resulted in reduced member satisfaction
when compared to face-to-face groups.

QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL THINKING

1. Identify five roles you play. What behaviours do they require? Are any of these roles in conflict?
If so, in what way? How do you resolve these conflicts?
Answer – Students’ answers will vary. Some suggested roles: student, sibling, child, adult, group
leader, member of a social group, etc. Behaviours and conflicts will vary with role.

2. “High cohesiveness in a group leads to higher group productivity.” Do you agree or disagree?
Explain.
Answer – Groups differ in their cohesiveness—the degree to which members are attracted to each
other and are motivated to stay in the group. Cohesiveness is important because it has been found to
be related to the group’s productivity. The relationship of cohesiveness and productivity depends on
the performance-related norms established by the group. If performance-related norms are high, a
cohesive group will be more productive, but if cohesiveness is high and performance norms are low,
productivity will be low. Students’ responses will vary based on their perception and integration of
the above facts.

4. What effect, if any, do you expect that workforce diversity has on performance and satisfaction?

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-20
Answer – Research studies generally substantiate that heterogeneous groups—those composed of
dissimilar individuals—are more likely to have diverse abilities and information and should be more
effective, especially on cognitive, creativity-demanding tasks. The group may be more conflict
laden and less expedient.

Essentially, diversity promotes conflict, which stimulates creativity, which leads to improved
decision making. Diversity created by racial or national differences interfere with group processes,
at least in the short term. Cultural diversity seems to be an asset on tasks that call for a variety of
viewpoints. Such groups have more difficulty in learning to work with each other and solving
problems. These difficulties seem to dissipate with time as it takes time for diverse groups to learn
how to work through disagreements and different approaches to solving problems.

5. If you need to generate a lot of ideas in a short period of time, would you have a bunch of
individuals generate ideas on their own, or would you band them together in groups?
Answer – Students’ responses will vary. Generally, students should indicate that group based
brainstorming would be the preferred technique in this case. They may also discuss the nominal
group technique or other methods discussed in the text.

ETHICAL DILEMMA – Discrimination against Muslims

Suicide bombers and terrorist attaches have been commonplace for decades in much of the Middle
East. But not so for Australasia and North America. The attacks on 11 September, 2001, opened
North American eyes to the reality that no place is completely safe from terrorist attacks. Australians
were shocked by the Bali bombings and a range of other bombings around the world. A number of
Australians and Americas allowed the actions of a few Muslim extremists to shape their attitudes
towards all Muslims. The result has created challenges for managers leading diverse groups contain
members of Middle Eastern backgrounds.

Jeff O’Connell is one of those managers. Jeff oversees a team of five computer chip designers,
working exclusively on defence contracts; the team comprises a women from Texas, an African
American from New York, two Russians, and an Arab American born in California to parents who
emigrated from Iran. Jeff, himself, was born in Canada, but raised in the United States. In the months
following the 11 September attacks and again following other publicised terrorist attacks Jeff became
aware that several of his team members were making openly disparaging remarks to Nicholas, their
Iranian co-worker, questioning his Arab friends, his religious practices and his loyalty to America.
Nicholas’s colleagues understood little about Islam and Nicholas’s religious practices. What, if
anything, should he do when he sees team members discriminating against Nicholas because of his
ethnicity?

Class discussion
1. In small break-out groups – where possible create groups with a maximum diversity of age,
gender, and ethnicity.
2. Ask the groups to reflect upon the situation in the case. Ask whether anyone in the group has
experienced discrimination because of their race, gender, ethnicity, group membership etc.
What was the situation and how did it make them feel? What solutions were sought to remove
the discrimination?
3. Returning to the case, ask the small groups to identify a number of recommendations for Jeff
and to record their suggestions for later discussion in the large group.
4. Returning to the large group – combine the suggestions that the smaller groups have
identified for Jeff.
5. Then lead a group debrief regarding the ranges of experiences that students in the group have
offered for discussion.

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-21
CASE STUDY 7 – The Dangers of Groupthink

Sometimes, the desire to maintain group harmony overrides the importance of making sound
decisions. When that occurs, team members are said to engage in groupthink.

• A civilian member of a process improvement team formed to develop a better way to handle
an air force bases mail took almost one month to come up with a plan. The problem – the
plan wasn’t a process improvement – 8 steps were now 19. The team’s new plan slowed mail
considerably – even though members new the plan was worse than its predecessor no one
wanted to question the team’s solidarity.

• During the dot.com boom Virginia Turezyn was victim of groupthink. Although sceptical of
the stability of the boom, after continually reading about the start-ups turning into
multimillion-dollar payoffs, she felt different, investing millions in several dot.com’s
including I-drive, a company providing electronic data storage. The problem was I-drive was
giving storage away for free and the company was losing money. She spoke up at one board
meeting, but the other younger executives disagreed. Turezyn began to question herself
thinking that she was too old and didn’t understand it. Unfortunately she did get it and the
company later filed for bankruptcy.

• Steve Blank, entrepreneur, also fell victim to groupthink. Also involved in dot.com start-up
he tried to persuade fellow board members to move to a more traditional business model. The
team didn’t take Blank’s advice, and he lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on the deal.

Questions
1. What are some of the factors that led to groupthink in the above cases? What can teams do to
attempt to reduce groupthink from occurring?
Answer - group size, status differences, norms, cohesion, decision making techniques
2. How might differences in status among group members contribute to groupthink? For example,
how might lower-status members react to a group’s decision? Are lower-status members more or less
likely to be dissenters? Why might higher-status group members be more effective dissenters?
Answer - The mail process improvement suffered from group status differences, with civilian lower-
status people in the group unwilling to challenge the security of the group identity with challenges to
the decisions. Having someone (even on a rotating basis) become the devil’s advocate would have
given the opportunity for dissenting voices to be heard.

3. How do group norms contribute to groupthink? Could group norms guard against occurrence of
groupthink? As a manager, how would you try to cultivate norms that prevent groupthink?
Answer – Group norms control the behaviour of group members. Members are motivated to
conform to group behavioural expectations in order to remain members of the group.
Implement some of the strategies suggested earlier, ie., monitor group size – people grow
more intimated and hesitant as group size increases, encourage group leaders to play an
impartial role, appoint one group member to play the role of devil’s advocate, utilise exercises
that stimulate active discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group and
intensifying identity protection.

4. How might group characteristics such as size and cohesiveness affect groupthink?
Answer - Groupthink appears to be closely aligned with the conclusions Asch drew from his
experiments on the lone dissenter. The results where individuals who hold a position different
from the majority are put under pressure to suppress or change their true beliefs. Groupthink
does not attack all groups. It occurs most often where there is a clear group identity, where

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-22
members hold a positive image of their group which they want to protect, and where the
group perceives a collective threat to this positive image.

ADDITIONAL WEB EXERCISE

The following exercise is provided in addition to that supplied in the text, and may be offered to
students interested in further exploring OB topics on-line.

Exploring OB Topics on the World Wide Web

Search Engines are our navigational tool to explore the WWW. Some
commonly used search engines are:

www.goto.com www.google.com
www.excite.com www.lycos.com
www.hotbot.com www.looksmart.com

1. Moving from a traditional hierarchical structure to teams requires

thought and planning. How teams will be applied within the organisation and their goals can
be one of the most challenging aspects of the process. Go to the web site
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/tt/t-articl/tb-basic.htm to learn more about team building.

2. What is the difference between a self managed team and a self directed team? The following
web site http://www.mapnp.org/library/grp_skll/slf_drct/slf_drct.htm has a series of links on
team topics where you can find the answer to the above questions and many other questions.
Write a short reaction paper on one of the topics from this site.

3. For a brief overview of the characteristics of effective teams go to

http://www.stanford.edu/class/e140/e140a/effective.html . After reviewing this list, think of a
team or group you have worked with in the past. Do not name names, but take each
characteristic listed and apply your experience to it. For example, characteristic number one
is, “There is a clear unity of purpose.” Did your group have that unity? Why or why not?
How did you know—was there a mission statement (or lack of one), were there goals (or no
goals), etc. Bring your completed analysis to class for group discussion.

4. What can be learned from a WebMonkey? Eight ways to find and keep web team players. Go
to: http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/98/22/index0a_page3.html . How does
WebMonkey’s recommendations compare to what we have learned in class? Write a
paragraph or two as to why you agree or disagree with these recommendations and what you
would change if necessary. Bring to class for further discussion.

Instructor’s Manual: Robbins Organisational Behaviour 5e © 2008 Pearson Education Australia 9-23