Social Loafing

Zhe zhang 14330937Weilong wang 14393574Ziyu wang 14453096Kaiwei jia 14999613

Outline

Explain why performance drops off when teams are used in individualistic cultures.

Describe the significance of social loafing in the process.

How can social loafing be reduced?

Definition of Individualistic culture

Individualistic culture is a society characterized by individualism which emphasizes personal freedom and achievement.

Individualist culture therefore awards social status to personal accomplishments

Feature of Individualistic culture

1 Emphasizes independence and individual achievement

2Promotes self-expression, individual thinking and personal choice

3 Associated with private property and individual ownership

4Stresses competition as a means of achieving collective goals

Hofstede’s (2001) measure of individualism

Individualism Vs. Collectivism

Reasons of Performance Drop off

Individualistic culture gives social status rewards to people who stand out

Individualism can make collective action more difficult

Individualistic culture would affect the company following the trend in the market

Individualism decreases coordination capacities leads to lower efficiency in the economy

NOKIA

The Finnish mobile phone manufacturer Nokia was the most successful European company of the 1990s

NOKIA went to downfall since 2000s

Microsoft acquired Nokia’s devices & services business, license Nokia’s patents and mapping services for €5.44 billion.

The reasons of NOKIA went wrong:Nokia underestimated the importance of softwareNokia overestimated the strength of its brandNokia wasn't located near a cluster of similar

companies

NOKIA

A world without NOKIA…

NOKIA keep insisting on their dictatorial decision (individualism), which leads to Social Loafing.

Social Loafing

Social Loafing

Social loafing describes the phenomenon that occurs when individuals exert less effort when working as a group than when working independently.

In 1913, a French agricultural engineer identified this social phenomenon.

Causes of Social Loafing

Equitable contributionSubmaximal goal settingLessened contingency between

input and outcomeLack of evaluationUnequal distribution of

compensationNon-cohesive group

The significance of social loafing issues

Individualistic National Cultures

• Avoid cooperation

• Example: American group compare with Chinese group

• A results of research

The significance of social loafing issues

Personal assumption • Result in low efficiency of teamwork.

• Dependency

The significance of social loafing issues

Free-rider problem • Forgoing a personal contribution.

• Reductions of individual effort.

The significance of social loafing issues

Self – Interest

• Dilemma has been created

• Example: Different self – interest between agent and owner

How to reduce social loafing

Determine specific situations in which loafing may occur.

Monitor individual efforts.

Emphasize the importance of individual pride and unique contributions.

Conduct individual meetings to discuss loafing.

How to reduce social loafing

Assign players to other positions.

Divide the team into smaller units.

Create fun team cooperation projects to increase team cohesion through team building activity.

Create competition mechanism between teams

Conclusion

Individual culture

Feature of individual culture

Performance drops off

Causes of social loafing

Effect on individual and group

Reduce social loafing effect

Social loafing issues Individualistic

National Cultures Personal

assumption Free-rider

problem Self – Interest

Bibliography

Christopher P. Earley. 1993. “East Meets West Meets Mideast: Further Explorations of Collectivistic and Individualistic Work Groups”. The Academy of Management Journal, 36 (2): 319-348. http://www.jstor.org/stable/256525

Jack W. Duncan. 1994. “Why some people loaf in groups while others loaf alone”. Academy of Management Executive, 8 (1): 79. http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9411302400/why-some-people-loaf-groups-while-others-loaf-alone

John A. Wagner. 1995. “Studies of Individualism-Collectivism: Effects on Cooperation in Groups”. The Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1): 152-172. http://www.jstor.org/stable/256731

Graen, G., Novak, and Sommerkamp. 1982. “The effects of leader – member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model”. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30: 109-131.

Olson, M. 1971. The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Turner, J. C., Sachedv, and Hogg. 1983. “Social categorization, interpersonal attraction and group formation”. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22: 227-239.

Surowiecki, James. 2012. "Where Nokia Went Wrong : The New Yorker." The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/09/where-nokia-went-wrong.html (Accessed October 10, 2013)

Miyamoto, Y., & Schwarz, N. (2006). “When conveying a message may hurt the relationship: Cultural differences in the difficulty of using an answering machine.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 540-547.

Guiso, L., P. Sapienza and L. Zingales (2006) "Does Culture Affect Economic Outcomes?“. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (2),23-49.

Rui. (2010) "The individualism movement of now.: 3 lessons from Nokia's downfall." The individualism movement of now. http://wtfbbqpwn.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/3-lessons-from-nokias-downfall.html. (Accessed October 21, 2013)

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd edition. Sage Publications.

Iyengar, S. S.,& Lepper, M. R. 1999. “Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349-366.