Function of Groups

Affiliation (e.g., sororities, fraternities, clubs) Survival Vital for task completion (organizations, work groups, charities)

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

Margaret Mead

Group Processes

Social Loafing

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

Ringleman Effect?

The average performance (input) of individuals decreases group size increases as

Ringelmann Findings

Individuals

1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 15-28 Why?

a) Less effort b) Coordination issues

Individual Efforts (Sum) Group Effort Group/Individ ual Ratio

764 516 533.7

575.5

1109.2

480 432 435.4

471.2

858.9

.63

.84

.82

.82

.78

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

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

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

8 Sound pressure per person 6 10 Potential productivity Pseudo-groups Reduced effort (Social loafing) Actual groups Coordination loss 4 2 1 2 6 Group size

Social Loafing on a More Complex Task

Social Loafing on a More Complex Task (cont.)

Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics

Procedure?

Survey: List of 92 adjectives rated on a 5-point scale from (1) “Not Characteristic to (5) “Characteristic” Ratings on: Men in General, Women in General, and Successful Manager in General

Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics

Results – Ratings by males?

Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.)

Results – Rating by females?

Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.)

Results?

High agreement in ratings Less agreement on ratings of women by males and females

Men, Women, and Leadership Characteristics (cont.)

Results regarding specific trait differences?

Males higher ratings on “ male raters)

Dominant-Aggressive

” characteristics – e.g., competitive, need for power, aggressive, assertive (especially by Females higher ratings on “ female raters)

Social Humanitarian

” characteristics - e.g., sympathetic, desire for friendship, helpful (especially by Big Picture Implications?

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

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

20

Barbara Mikilski Dianne Feinstein Barbara Boxer Parry Murray Susan Collins Mary Landrieu Maria Cantwell Debbie Stabenow Claire McCaskill Kay Hagan Lisa Murkowski Amy Klobuchar Jeanne Shaheen Kirsten Gillibrand Kelly Ayotte Tammy Bladwin Deb Fischer Heidi Heitkamp Mazie Hirono Elizabeth Warren

Company

GENERAL MOTORS HEWLETT-PACKARD IBM PEPSICO A.D.M

LOCKHEED MARTIN DUPONT MONDELEZ GENERAL DYNAMICS TJX XEROX Female CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies?

23 ( Link )

CEO

Mary Barra 2014 Meg Whitman 2011 AVON

Company

SEMPRA ENERGY GUARDIAN LIFE Virginia Rometty 2012 Indra Nooyi 2006 Patricia Woertz 2006 Marillyn Hewson 2013 Ellen Kullman 2009 Irene Rosenfeld 2006 Phebe Nokakovic 2013 Carol Meyrowitz 2007 Ursula Burns 2009 CAMPBELL SOUP MYLAN INGREDION CH2M HILL GRAYBAR ELECTRIC GANNETT FRONTIER COMM. YAHOO DUKE ENERGY Lynn Good 2013 2011 = 12; 2012 = 18

CEO

Sherilyn McCoy 2012 Debra Reed 2011 Deanna Mulligan 2011 Denise Morrison 2011 Heather Bresch 2012 Ilene Gordon 2009 Jacqueline Hinman 2014 Kathleen Mazzarella 2012 Gracia Martore 2011 Maggie Wilderotter 2006 Marissa Meyer 2012

Gender and Leadership: Recent Findings

Females as CEOs -- increase in stock price But, it depends on industry

Survey of over 60,000 direct reports

No gender preference for one

own boss

’ s Price goes up higher if female CEO is head of female-dominated business, otherwise small decrease in stock price (Cooke & Glass, 2011) “ Ideal ” boss: 54% -- No Preference 13% -- Female Preference 33% -- Male Preference • • Small but significant preference for opposite-sex bosses Increased preference for stereotypical female leader characteristics (sensitive, supportive) vs. direct, forceful. Study by Elesser & Lever (2011)

Zajonic

’

s Theory of Social Facilitation

Well-learned (dominant) response Poorly learned or novel (non-dominant) response Social Facilitation Performance enhanced Arousal caused by presence of others Social Interference Performance hindered

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

Antecedents

• High cohesiveness • Isolation • Directive leader • Homogeneous members Stressful situations

Symptoms

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

Consequences

Incomplete survey of alternatives Poor information search Failure to examine risks of preferred choice

High probability of a bad decision

Other Group Decision-Making Phenomena Collective Entrapment

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

Common Knowledge Effect

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

~ Social Identity Theory ~ [In-Group Bias]

They tendency to link one ’ s self-concept and self esteem with the status and/or behavior of groups Also, people tend to reward members of ingroups and disfavor those in outgroups (e.g.,

Minimal Group Paradigm

) ---

Basking in Reflected Glory ---

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

In and Out-Groups Bias • Liking, spend time with leader • Challenging, visible jobs • Better memory for good behavior • Treated warmly • Performance evaluations • Allocation of rewards • Less desirable jobs • Less time spent with supervisor • Treated formally • Lower performance evaluations • Less rewards In-group characteristics Out-group characteristics

Are Groups Good or Bad?

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