Upload
sandeep-chowdhury
View
229
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
1/26
10/8/2013
1
OB-II
Session 1-4
Tuckmans Five-Stage Theory
Performing Adjourning
Norming
Storming
Forming
Return to
Independence
Roles
Goals
Trust
Dependence
Climate of open
communication, strong
cooperation and lots of
helping behavior
Feeling of
Team spirit is
experienced
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
2/26
10/8/2013
2
Re-storming re-norming
Reference: McGrew, Bilotta & Deeney, 1999
Performing
Norming
Storming
Forming
Performing De-norming
De-storming
De-forming
Group Decay
Care Little beyond
their self-imposed
borders
Discontent
surfaces and
cohesiveness
Erosion of
standards of
conduct
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
3/26
10/8/2013
3
1. Should not become complacent upon reaching the performing
stage
2. Awareness is the first line of defense
3. Constructive steps need to be taken to bolster cohesiveness
even when the work groups seem to be doing their best
Groups
Individual
Contribution
Individual Outcomes
Common Goals
Demands of
Management
Self-imposed
Demands
Common Goals and
Commitment to
Purpose
Mutual Outcomes
Individual and
Collective
Teams
Performance
Depends on ..
Accountability
rests on ..
Members are
interested in ..
Responsive to ..
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
4/26
10/8/2013
4
No of
Members
Productivity
Reference: John, G. (1996). Organizational Behavior: Understanding and
Managing Life at Work. Harper Collins, Page - 251
How many group members is too many?
Mathematical Modeling
Approach
Odd number of groups are recommended if the issue is to be
settled by a majority vote
3 to 13
Laboratory Simulation
Approach
If high quality decision quality is important
If generation of Creative ideas is the objective
Increase in group size
1. Positive effects of team building
2. Group leaders tend to be more
directive
3. Member satisfaction
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
5/26
10/8/2013
5
As the size of the team increases beyond 20 members, the level of
natural cooperation among members of the team decreases
Reference: Gratton, L & Erickson, T. J. (2007). Eight ways to build collaborative
teams.Harvard Business Review.
Punctuated-Equilibrium Model
Completion
Transition
First
Meeting
Phase 1
Phase 2
(High)
(Low)
A (A+B)/2
Time
B
Performance
Temporary Groups with Deadlines
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
6/26
10/8/2013
6
Effect of Men and Women working together in
Groups
Attitude Shift
Neutral to negative
Favorable to neutral
Police
Nursing
Keep the Domain
Share the Domain
Women
Interrupted men
and women equally
Men
interrupted women
significantly more
often than
As the attitude towards the role of women have
changed in contemporary society, differences in
social participation have also begun to diminish- Nielsen (1990)
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
7/26
10/8/2013
7
Percentage of Women
CollectiveIntelligence
Average
Reference: Anita Woolley and Thomas Malone (2011). What Makes a Team
Smarter? More Women,Harvard Business Review
Group
Reward
Member
Interaction
Group
Size
Somewhat
Difficult Entry
Agreement with
Team Goals
External
Challenges
Cohesiveness
Success
Cohesiveness
Time
Before After
Reference: John, G. (1996).
Organizational Behavior:
Understanding and Managing Life at
Work. Harper Collins.
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
8/26
10/8/2013
8
Group Cohesiveness
PerformanceNorms
Cohesiveness Productivity
Cohesiveness
Performance-
relatedNorms
High Low
High High Productivity Moderate Productivity
Low Low Productivity Moderate/ Low Productivity
Norm
Help the group survive
Simplify behavioral expectations
Help in avoiding embarrassing situations
Clarify groups central values/ unique identity
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
9/26
10/8/2013
9
How Norms are Developed
Explicit statement by supervisors or co-workers
Critical events in groups history
Primacy
First behavioral patterns that that emerges in a group
Carryover behaviors from past situations
Others Expectations are Unknown
Others have conflicting or inconsistent Expectations
Others expectations > Ones Ability
Expected Behavior for a given PositionRole
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
10/26
10/8/2013
10
Zimbardos Prison Experiment
A follow up study by BBC
Prisoners and guards
behave differently
when they are
monitored
Guards were more careful in their
behavior
Concerned about how their actions
might be perceived
An egalitarian system developed
between prisoners and the guards
Abuse of roles can be limited when people are made
conscious of their behavior
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
11/26
10/8/2013
11
A socially defined position or rank given to groups or
group members by others
Status
The power a person wields over others
A persons ability to contribute to a groups goals
An individuals personal characteristics
High status people are given more freedom to deviate from norms
Tend to be more assertive members
Criticize/ state more commands / interrupt others more often
Inhibit diversity of ideas
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
12/26
10/8/2013
12
Properties of
Groups
CohesivenessSize
Roles Norms
Status
Conformity
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
13/26
10/8/2013
13
The convergence of individuals thoughts, feelings, andbehavior toward a group norm
There is no direct request to comply with the group
nor
Any reason to justify the behavior change
Normative
Influence
Informational
Influence
Subjective
Uncertainty
Need for information
to reduce uncertainty
Comparison with
others
Need for Certainty
InternalizationCompliance
Power of others to
Reward/Punish
Conflict between own
and others opinions
Need for Acceptance/
Approval of Others
Private Disagreement Public Acceptance Private Acceptance
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
14/26
10/8/2013
14
Distortion of individual judgment by a unanimous but
incorrect opposition
Asch Effect
Results
33% went along with the group on a majority of the trials
25% remained completely independent
75% conformed at least once
When tested alone (no confederates), subjects got more than
98% of the judgments correct
When tested with confederates, they only got 66% of thejudgments correct
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
15/26
10/8/2013
15
Number of Confederates
ConformityLevel
The Asch Experiment
If there is one dissenting voice, the dramatic effects of
conformity are erased
Visibility
Importance of the issue
Low individual confidence
Strong commitment to the group
Difficult/ Ambiguous Issues
Determinants
High status people
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
16/26
10/8/2013
16
Add more and morepeople to a group
Total force exerted by the
group increases
The average force exerted
by each group member
declines
The phenomenon in which participants, who work together,
generate less effort than do participants who work alone
Social Loafing
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
17/26
10/8/2013
17
Does social loafing occur in brainstorming groups
Increasing Group Size, Increasing Group Output
N u m be r o f Ide as G ene ra te d
6772
48
3 425
01 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
1 2 4 8 1 2
N um be r o f G ro up M em be rs
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
18/26
10/8/2013
18
But Decreasing Individual Input
Ideas Per Gro up M ember
2 5
6
812
1 7
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
1 2 4 8 1 2
N u m ber o f G ro up M em bers
Reference: Thompson, L. L. (2003).Making the team: A guide for managers . Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Motivation strategies
Increase identifiability
Promote involvement
Reward team members for
performance
Strengthen team cohesion
Provide team performance
reviews and feedback
Coordination strategies
Using single-digit teams
Training team members together
Spending more time practicing
Minimizing links in
communication
Setting clear performance
standards
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
19/26
10/8/2013
19
Stepladder Techniques
1. Each group member must be given the groups task and
sufficient time to think about the problem before
entering the core group
2. The entering member must present his/ her preliminary
solutions before hearing the core groups preliminary
solutions.
3. With the entry of the additional member to the core
group, sufficient time to discuss the problem is
necessary4. A final decision must be purposely delayed until the
group has been formed in its entirety.
Inability to manage agreement, not theinability to manage conflict
Abilene Paradox
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
20/26
10/8/2013
20
Agree privately (as individuals) to the situation facing the
organization
Actions that are counterproductive, leads to the experience
of frustration, anger, irritation, and dissatisfaction with
their organization
Invalid and inaccurate information, leads to collective
decisions that lead them to take actions contrary to what
they want to do
Fail to accurately communicate their desires and/ or beliefs
to one another
Organizational Members
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
21/26
10/8/2013
21
Organizational members do not deal with the issue and
the cycle repeats itself with greater magnitude
They form sub-groups with trusted acquaintances and
blame other subgroups for the organizations dilemma
Abilene Paradox
unwillingness to speak up
about what one thinks and
believes
Inaccurate assumptions
about what others think and
believe
Action Anxiety
Fear of Separation
(Ostracism)
Negative Fantasies
(Loss of face, Prestige, Position,
Health)
Real Risk
Make Confronters intoHeroes
Develop a Culture of Pride
Create Empowering
Structures
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
22/26
10/8/2013
22
Groups become more concerned with reaching
consensus than with reaching consensus in a way
that ensures its validity
Groupthink
Groupthink
Mindguards
Excessive
Stereotyping
Illusion of
Unanimity
Collective
Rationalization
Self-
Censorship
Invulnerability
Pressure for
Conformity
Inherent
Morality
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
23/26
10/8/2013
23
Antecedents of Groupthink
Stressful Situations
Highly cohesive groups
Group Structure
Homogeneous members
Directive leadership
Unsystematic procedures
Avoiding Groupthink
The leader should be neutral
High status members offer opinions last
The leader should give high priority to members airing
objections and doubts, and be willing to accept criticism
Groups should always consider unpopular alternat ives,
assigning the role of devil's advocate to several strong membersof the group
Outside experts should be included in vital decision making
Group size
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
24/26
10/8/2013
24
Two heads are better than One!
The benefits of two heads require that they differ in relevant
skills and abilities
The group members must be able to communicate their ideas
freely and openly. This requires an absence of hostility and
intimidation
The task being undertaken is complex. Relative to individuals,
groups do better on complex rather than simple tasks
Individual
LevelGroup Level
Organizational
Level
Mount
Everest
Tragedy
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
25/26
10/8/2013
25
Team Effectiveness
Shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking
Risk of looking ignorant
Risk of looking incompetent
Risk of being seen as intrusive
Risk of being seen as negative
Team members demonstrate a high level of trust and mutual
respect for one another
The team members do not believe that the group will marginalize
or penalize for speaking up or challenging prevailing opinions
Team
Psychological
Safety
Team Learning
Behavior
Level of
Familiarity
Leader Coaching
and Support
Member Status
Difference
7/27/2019 Session 1-4.pdf
26/26
10/8/2013
Thank You