Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Social Psychology
Groups & LeadershipGroups & Leadership20082008
Lecturer: James NeillLecturer: James Neill
Overview: Pt 1(Groups)
Questions about groups What is a group? Groups, roles, and selves Group action How groups think Group decision making Effects of groups on individuals Social facilitation Hawthorne effect Social loafing Intergroup conflict Co-operation between groups Self-categorisation theory Social categorisation theory
ReadingBaumeister &
Bushman (2008):
Ch14: Groups
3
Questions about groupsIs group behaviour different to
the behaviour of individuals?Do groups make better or
worse decisions than individuals?
Why do groups conflict?
4
What is a group?
How would you define a (social) group?
What are the minimal criteria for a group?
5
What is a group?2 or more people “doing or being something
together”Group members:
–Feel similar–Share a common identity–Work towards a common goal–Are distinguished from outgroup(s)–Depend on each other
6
What is a group?
“A collection of people, usually people who are doing or being something together.”
(Baumeister & Bushman, 2008, p. 480)
7
What is a group?
“two or more people who share a common definition and evaluation of themselves and behave in accordance with such a definition”
(Vaughan & Hogg, 2002, p. 200)
8
What is a group?
interact with one anotheraccept rights & obligationsshare a common identity.
A collection of people who:
9
What is a group?Criteria:2 or more personsformal social structurecommon fatecommon goals interdependenceself-define as group membersrecognition by others
10
Why groups?Groups are favoured by evolution:•If individuals compete against groups…•Humans always live in small groups•Groups are essential to culture
11
Advantages of animal groups
Safety in numbersVigilance: even if just one spots
the danger, or opportunitySharing resourcesWorking together,
s power
12
Advantages of human groups
Role differentiation & division of labour–Everything is done by experts
e.g., assembly linesAccumulation of knowledge
–Transmit to next generationEconomic exchange
13
Advantages of human groups
In human evolution:Safety in numbersHelp others find foodAccomplish tasks
that are too difficult for the individual
14
Studying groups
The whole (group) can be more than the sum of its parts
But sometimes it is much lessHence one challenge for social
psychologists: Understand the advantages and disadvantages of group process
15
Social facilitation
The tendency to perform well when others are present
Classic study by Triplett (1897):–Noticed that bicycle racers usually
made better times in group competition than alone.
–Children wind string on a fishing reel faster when working with others present
16
Social facilitation
But sometimes the presence of others makes performance worse (social inhibition)
Zajonc noticed that the presence of others is arousing–Arousal has been known to enhance
the dominant response
17
Facilitation vs. loafing
Social facilitation is found in many animals
Social loafing is uniquely human–If people are not held responsible,
they will not contribute to the group–People are naturally inclined to
notice and punish social loafers and cheaters
18
Social Facilitation TheoryMere presence of others is
arousing, which facilitates the “dominant response”. Hence, for:– Familiar tasks: dominant response is
success, so this s when others are present
– Unfamiliar tasks: dominant response is failure, so this too s when others are present
Same for other kinds of dominant response e.g., talkers talk more, silent types clam up more
Yerkes-Dodson Law
Arousal
Per
form
ance
Optimal arousal:Difficult task
Optimal arousal:Easy task
20
Presence of others
Arousal in performing dominant responses
If correct
If incorrect
Social facilitation
Social inhibition
Mere physical presence of others leads to arousal, motivating performance of dominant response (best learned, most habitual).
Zajonc’s Drive Theory of Social Facilitation (1965)
21
Social Facilitation
In a social situation, would a violinist perform a: well-rehearsed piece well? difficult piece poorly?
22Fig. 14-2, p. 487
23
Social Facilitation TheoryZajonc et al. (1969) got cockroaches
to run down a clear tube towards a light:
They ran faster when watched by other cockroaches.
When put in a simple maze, it took them longer when they were being watched.
24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Others Present
Alone
Novice30%
Expert70%
% of sh
ots m
ade
Pool Hall Study (Michaels et al., 1982):
25
Why does this happen?
Evaluation apprehension – concern about being judged
Apprehension about evaluation arousal d drive & social facilitation
e.g., Schmitt et al. (1986)
26
Experimental Condition
Tim
e ta
ken
(sec
onds
)
Alone Mere presence Evaluation apprehension
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
Easy task
Difficult task
Evaluation Apprehension Model (Cottrell, 1972)
27
Distraction-conflict theory (Baron, 1986; Sanders, 1983)
Conflict occurs when person simultaneously pays attention to task & others
Conflict arousal d drive & social facilitation
e.g., Sanders, Baron & Moore (1978)
28
Individual performing a task
Presence of audience or coactors
Tendency to pay attention to task
Tendency to pay attention to audience or coactors
Attentional conflict
d arousal/drive
Social facilitation effects
Distraction-conflict theory
29
Distraction: Drive/Conflict Theory of Social Facilitation
The act of showing people you are interested in them usually spurs them to better job performance.
Also known as the ‘Somebody upstairs cares’ syndrome.
This was a tremendous break from the idea that industrial man was motivated by economic means only.
30
The Hawthorne Effect
People who know that they are being observed modify their behavior not only consciously but also unconsciously.
31
Social loafing
People often effort when working in a group.
Ringlemann (1913) - less effort per person exerted when rope pulling in a group vs. alone.
Latane, Williams & Harkins (1979) - performance d as group size d.
32
“Tug of War” Study(Ringelmann)
Alone - pulled~ 85 kg / person
In groups – pulled
~ 61-65 kg / person
33
A reduction in individual effort when working on a collective task compared to working alone.
Coordination loss - losses of productivity due to problems of coordinating individual members
Motivation loss - losses due to s in individual members’ motivation
Social loafing
340
20
40
6
0
8
0
100
Group size (persons)
Per
cen
tage
red
uct
ion
in
ind
ivid
ual
sh
out
1 2 3 4 5 6
Real groups
Pseudo groups
…………………………………..Potential performance
Coordination loss
Motivation loss, d effort, social loafing
Reduction in volume of individual shout in 2-person & 6-person real & pseudo-groups
35
Social loafingFactors:
– Not individually identifiable or accountable
– Not wanting to be a ‘sucker’– Bad apple effect
Countering:– When one’s cooperation is unique to the
group, less likely to loaf.– Identifying people in groups & holding
them accountable produces better results.
36
Why does social loafing occur?
Output equityEvaluation apprehensionMatching to standardDiffusion of individual
responsibility as group size s (Latane, 1981).
37
Collective Effort Model (CEM) (Karau & Williams, 1993)
Individuals Working Alone
Individuals Working with Others in Groups
Effort Performance Outcome
Effort Group Performance
Share of available rewards
Links between individual’s efforts & their outcomes weaker when working with others in a group.
38
Collective Effort Model (CEM)
Individuals work hard on a task when:
1. Believe working hard will lead to a better performance
2. Believe better performance will be recognised & rewarded
3. Rewards are ones they value & desire
39
Ways to social loafing
Increase: identifiability value of taskuniqueness of contributionsgroup cohesiveness identification with the group
(e.g., Holt, 1987)
40
Diverse Groups
Can be more creative & flexible.
Better chance of bringing in different information.
Can be harder to cooperate & work together.
41
Roles
Complementary roles produce better results than having each member do the same thing.
Human roles work in the context of large systems where most people do different things.
42
Roles
In fascist movements individual self-interest is subordinated to the interests of the group.
Roles are defined by the system; exist independent of the person in that role.
People need to be flexible to take on & drop roles.
43
Optimal Distinctiveness Theory
Tension between the need to be:similar to, anddistinctive from other group
members.
44
Altruistic Punishment
People will sometimes sacrifice their own gain, to benefit all, by punishing cheaters & free riders
May be considered guarding the culture– Culture depends on a system; cheat the
system, ruin it for all
45
DeindividuationLoss of self-awareness & evaluation
apprehension– Occurs more in situations which favour
expression of group norms
Can lead to antisocial behavior: –being anonymous makes people more
willing to violate norms–Stop worrying about what others think
Accountability is best predictor of aggression
46
0102030405060
Alone In Groups
Identified
Anonymous
% W
ho to
ok e
xtra
Trick or Treat Study
47
Two conditions:1. Hoods & white coats2. Wore large name tags
Asked them to deliver shocks
Gave longer shocks when anonymous
Zimbardo “hood” study (1970)
48
Social cooperation dilemmas
Social Dilemmas - situation in which most rewarding short-term choice for individual causes negative consequences for group as a whole
Commons Dilemma - if all cooperate, all gain; if all compete, all lose
49
Social dilemmas & inter-group cooperation
Lack of careSquandering shared resources
InequalityAmbition & greed
CommunalPrivate
50
Problems with private vs. communal ownership
Dilemmas:Social conscience vs. selfish impulseTime (Now vs. tomorrow)
Factors influencing outcome:CommunicationBehaviour of others
51
The tragedy of the commons
A type of social trap, often economic, that involves a conflict over resources between individual interests and the common good.
52
5 years eachA freeB 10 yearsA Betrays
A 10 yearsB free
6 months eachA Stays Silent
B BetraysB Stays Silent
The prisoner’s dilemma
53
54
1. Cooperation s as conflict between own & others’ interests s
2. Cooperation s as rewards for coop 3. Communication s cooperation4. Cooperation s when players know each
other5. More likely to cooperate with ingroup
members6. d no. of participants leads to d conflict7. Initial social value orientation - competitive
vs. cooperative
Factors influencing cooperation in these games
55
Criticisms of dilemma games
Assumes individuals are rational, motivated to maximise self-interest
Lack ecological/external validityAre they about intergroup
cooperation?
56
Rejection by groups
Rejection by groups has more impact than acceptance
Rejected experience drop in self-esteem
57
Group decision-making
BrainstormingGroup polarisationGroupthink
58
Thinking in groupsThe pooling of information has
many benefits for groups and for culture
Sometimes groups can be smarter than individuals, even smarter than experts
But sometimes groups can be incredibly stupid
59
Are groups smart?Brainstorming: Originated in ad
agencies–People generate ideas together–Interactive stimulation of creative
energyIntuitively appealingExciting, enjoyableBut not creative: less quality and
quantity than working alone
60
Are groups smart?
“Wisdom of crowds:” pooled group information is often superior to single judgments
Stock marketBetting lines on sports eventsPolling
61
Are groups smart?
“Wisdom of crowds” works if…Diversity of opinionIndependent thought process and
judgment (instead of pressure to conform)
Pooled information, central ‘clearinghouse’
Leaders can help OR harm this process
62
Symptoms of groupthinkOverestimating the groupBecoming close-mindedPressures toward conformity
" Where all think
, alike no one
thinks very
."much
- Walter Lippmann
63
Factors that promote groupthinkCohesive groupStrong, popular leader, with vision
–Dissent seems disloyal & personal“Mindguards” & other pressures to
conform, including stifling dissentIsolationGroup has high self-regard and
moral self-righteousness So it seems OK to disregard
outside views
64
Are groups smart?Two heads are better than one…But two heads working together
aren’t as good as two heads working independently
65
BrainstormingGeneration of ideas in a group to
enhance group creativityDoes brainstorming greater
creativity?People enjoy the process &
evaluate it favorablyOutput is lower than individuals
working aloneNominal groups outperform ‘real’
interactive groups.
66
BrainstormingWhy?Evaluation apprehensionSocial loafingProduction matchingProduction blocking
RemediesElectronic brainstormingHeterogenous groups
67
How groups think
Collective wisdom of group is better than individual experts
People must act as independent members of a group and share their diverse information
68
Teams
Many believe teams –Make better decisions
–Improve performance
People enjoy working on teams–Satisfies their need to belong
–Feel confident, effective & superior
69
Transactive memory
Members of a small group remember different things.
Begins at learning stage where group can decide roles for learning different things.
70
Groupthink
Tendency of group members to think alike.
Group clings to shared but flawed view rather than being open to the truth (Janus, 1972, 1982).
Roots in desire to get along.
71
Signs of groupthink
Pressure toward conformityAppearance of unanimous
agreement–Self-censorship
Illusion of invulnerabilitySense of moral superiorityTendency to overestimate
opponents
72
Factors that encourage groupthink
Fairly similar & cohesive group to start.
Strong, directive leader.Group is isolated in some sense
from others.Group regards itself as superior.
73
Why aren’t committees effective?
Group harmony stifles free exchange of information
Focus on common knowledge rather than unique information that people have
74
What is a camel?
A horse designed by committee.
75
Why aren’t committees effective?
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
76
The wisdom of crowds
Why the many are smarter than the few &
How collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies & nations
77
The wisdom of crowds
Criteria which separate wise from irrational crowds:
Diversity of opinion IndependenceDecentralizationAggregation
78
Failures of crowd intelligence
Toohomogenouscentraliseddividedimitativeemotional
79
Risky shiftGroup discussion tends to lead to
more risky decisions A group becomes more willing to take greater risks than individuals (on average) e.g., “running of the bulls”.
80
Group polarisationRisky Shift is now more generically
discussed as “group polarisation” tendency of group members to strengthen the initial inclination of groups and shift towards more extreme positions as a result of group discussion.
i.e., could become more risky or more conservative
81
Group polarisation
Movement toward either extreme (risk or caution) resulting from group discussion
82
Persuasive Arguments Theory
During discussion, people are exposed to novel arguments that support initial position
Become more convinced of initial position
BUT - group polarisation is found in studies involving perceptual judgements
83
Social Comparison/Value Theory
Competition between group members to represent some underlying valued position
Social comparison - strive to represent most valued (extreme) position
BUT - group polarisation occurs for ‘non-value’ judgements
84
Minimal Group Paradigm
Tajfel et al. (1971) - minimal group experiments
Most popular strategy was to favour the ingroup as much as possible.
Ingroup bias occurs in absence of personal gain & intergroup competition.
85
Intergroup ConflictWhat are the minimal conditions
for intergroup conflict?(A: mere categorisation)
Is competition between groups necessary (& sufficient) for intergroup conflict?(A: Interdependence & conflict of interest is not necessary for bias against outgroups).
86
Intergroup Contact & Superordinate Goals
May conflict & cooperationSherif’s studies - needed
superordinate goals in addition to contact to produce cooperation
Superordinate goals only work if goal is achieved
Failure may worsen intergroup relations - attributed to outgroup
Recategorisation (Common Ingroup Identity Model)
87
Self-Categorisation Theory
Prototype–position that defines what group has
in common compared to outgroupsIngroup members conform to
prototype or ingroup normTends to be polarised in intergroup
contexts
88
Intergroup conflict
Sherif’s summer camp studies (Sherif, 1956)
Studies had 4 phases:1. Boys arrive at camp, formed
friendships2. Split into 2 groups that cut
across friendship lines, groups isolated
89
Intergroup conflict
3. 2 groups brought together to engage in intergroup competition
4. Introduced superordinate goals d intergroup conflict.
90
Sherif studies: Important points
Some ethnocentrism present before competition
Boys did not have authoritarian personalities
Ingroups formed even though friends were outgroup members
Mere contact was insufficient to improve intergroup relations
91
Realistic Conflict Theory
Mutually exclusive goals intergroup conflict & ethnocentrism
Shared goals requiring intergroup interdependence for achievement conflict, promote cooperation
Conflict will not occur when there is no personal gain for individuals in groups
92
Conclusions
Groups influence the behaviour of individuals.
Group decisions tend to be different to individual decisions (but not necessarily worse)
Conflict between groups – realistic conflict theory vs. social identity theory.
93
Conclusions
Submerging the individual in the group often leads to “bad” outcomes
Role differentiation & division of labour make human groups effective
94
Overview: Pt 1(Groups)
Questions about groups What is a group? Groups, roles, and selves Group action How groups think Group decision making Effects of groups on individuals Social facilitation Hawthorne effect Social loafing Intergroup conflict Co-operation between groups Self-categorisation theory Social categorisation theory
95
Overview: Pt 2(Leadership)
Power and Leadership
96
Leadership questions
What is leadership? What is followership?What are the characteristics of
successful leaders?Do leaders show distinctive
patterns of behavior? What leadership styles are
there?
97
Leadership questionsHow does leaders’ behavior vary
with the situation?What sources of power and
influence are used by leaders?What are the effects of different
types of leadership?Can we do without leadership?How can leadership skills be
developed?
98
Social psychology of leadership
Leadership is…A relationshipA group phenomenonA form of social
influence
99
Process of getting the cooperation of others in accomplishing a desired goal.
Ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals.
What is leadership?
100
“The most powerful kind of leadership is to offer people pathways and permissions to do things they want to do but feel unable to do for themselves. That sort of energy evokes energies within people that far exceed the powers of coercion.”
(Palmer 1993)
“You know what makes leadership? It is the ability to get men to do what they don't want to do and like it.”
34th president of the United States of America
101
What is a follower?A follower is an individual who pursues
the ideas, goals, or tasks of a leader. Followers can be developed by
working together to identify goals and strategies for achieving the goals.
102
Follower characteristics
Identification with the leader and the vision
Heightened emotional levelsWilling subordination to the leaderFeelings of empowerment
103
Leadership characteristics
• Involves non-coercive influence
• Is goal directed
• Requires followers
104
Evolution of Leadership Theory
105
Modern thought on leadershipPost-WWI brought the demise of
“hereditary leadership” First theories on personal qualities or traits
Post-WWII, shift to observable behaviours
1960’s - Situational leadershipRecently - Transactional to
transformational leadership
106
Traditional leadership theoriesDispositional/trait theories
– Leadership is personality traits
– Certain attributes make a great leaderBehavior theories
– Leadership is what someone does
Situational (contingency) theories– Leadership is situational/contingent.– Interaction between leader & situation– Someone may be an effective leader in
one circumstance but ineffective in a different circumstance.
107
The Trait Approach: Great Person Theory
Leaders possess special traits that set them apart from others & that these traits are responsible for their assuming positions of power & authority.
108
Trait theoriesTheories that consider personality,
social, physical, or intellectual traits to differentiate leaders from followers, e.g.,:
Drive, ambition, & energy Desire to lead Honesty & integrity Self-confidence Intelligence Job-relevant knowledge & technical expertise
109
Leadership TraitsTraits of successful leaders
– Humble and modest
– Extreme persistence
Traits of people perceived as good leaders– Decisive
– Competent at group tasks
– Possess integrity
– Honest and good moral character
– Have vision
110
Negative leadership traits that prevent individuals from being
leaders
UninformedNon-participativeRigid Authoritarian Offensive
111
Criticisms – Trait TheoriesNo universal traits predict
leadership in all situationsUnclear evidence of the cause
and effect of relationship of leadership and traits.(Which comes first, trait or leadership position?)
Traits predict behavior better in “weak” than “strong” situations.
112
Criticisms – Trait theoriesProvides little advice or training to
give current or soon-to-be leadersBetter predictor of the
appearance of leadership than distinguishing effective and ineffective leaders.
Overlooks needs of followersFails to clarify trait's relative
importance.
113
Leadership roles
Early studies identified 3 different styles:
AutocraticDemocraticLaissez-faire
114
Leadership styles1. The quality of group output was
better under democratic leadership.2. Democratic leadership took more
time than autocratic.3. Member satisfaction was higher
under democratic leadership.4. The democratic group had the
lowest absenteeism.5. The democratic group fostered
more independence.
115
Contingency Leadership Theory
Effective leadership behavior depends on the situation at hand
Given the right context, every leadership theory or model is the correct one.
There is no one best style of leadership
Leadership style must match the situation
116
Task- vs People-Oriented Leadership
Task-Oriented– task is uppermost;
– employee needs close supervision;
– supervisor upset when tasks not accomplished;
– human aspect neglected;
– regular checks on work progress;
– perceived as “tough”;
People-Oriented– concern for
subordinates’ needs;
– climate building;
– inquiries about problems;
– can be counterproductive if “overdone”.
117
The Continuum of Leadership Behavior
(Tannenbaum, 1974)A
UT
OC
RA
T
DEMOCRAT
PUSH
TellsSells
[Tests]Consults
Joins
PULL
Boss
Employee
118
Task vs. relationship
Task-oriented LeadershipBest under situations of high or low
controlRelationship-oriented Leadership Best under situations of moderate control
119
Reasons for a more participative or democratic style:
Information or expertise exists among subordinates
Greater understanding, acceptance and support of decision by subordinates
Autocractic or Democratic?
120
Path-Goal Theory
Subordinates will be motivated by a leader only to the extent they perceive this individual as helping them to attain valued goals.
Therefore, adopt a leadership style that is appropriate to the situation to maximise performance & job satisfaction.
121
Path-Goal Leadership StylesDirective
–Informs subordinates of expectations, gives guidance, shows how to do tasks
Supportive–Friendly and approachable, shows
concern for status, well-being and needs of subordinates
122
Path-Goal Leadership Styles
Participative– Consults with subordinates, solicits
suggestions, takes suggestions into consideration
Achievement oriented– Sets challenging goals, expects
subordinates to perform at highest level, continuously seeks improvement in performance, has confidence in highest motivations of employees
123
Path-Goal Guidelines to Be Effective Leader
Determine the outcomes subordinates want
Reward individuals with their desired outcomes when they perform well
Be clear with expectations
124
Transactional & Transformational Leadership
As a transactional leader, I use formal rewards
& punishments.
As a transformational leader,
I inspire and excite followers to high levels
of performance.
125
McGregor’s Theory X & Theory Y 2 assumptions about human
nature:Theory X
– Workers are passive and lazy, prefer to be led, and resist change
Theory Y– Management’s task is to ensure that
workers' important needs are met
Either theory can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
126
Servant Leadership
Servant Leaders focus on providing d service to others—meeting the goals of both the followers and the organisation—rather than themselves
127
Benefits of Leading Without Authority
Latitude for creative deviance–Easier to raise questions
Issue focus–Freedom to focus on single issue,
rather than many issuesFrontline information
–Often closer to the people who have the information
128
Substitutes for leadership
In some situations, the leader may not be necessary. Other factors may substitute for or neutralise leader’s influence, e.g.,:
Workers who are experienced or trained Jobs that are unambiguous or satisfying Workgroups that are cohesive Goals that are formalised Rules that are rigid
129
What is power?
Ability to get someone to do something you want done.
Capacity to make things happen in the way you want.
Extent to which 1 person can exert more force on other group members than they, in turn, can exert to resist the powerful person’s intentions.
130
Effects of power on leadersFeel goodAre reward-orientedChanges relationships between peopleRely more on automatic processingRemoves inhibitions against taking
action
131
Effects of power on followersFollowers pay extra attention to
the powerful person & try to understand him/her
People with less power will be prone to fostering peace & harmony
People low in power adapt to the expectations of high-power people
132
Bad bosses
In surveys, a majority of people say the worst thing about their job is their boss
Estimates suggest over 50% of managers in America are incompetent or otherwise bad
133
Bad bosses: Four typesPromoted above ability
(Peter Principle)Fails to build a good team
(poor hiring choices)Poor interpersonal skills (arrogant, etc.)
leading to conflictsUndermines the group
(e.g., betrays trust)
134
Dangerous leaders “Emotional disregard and
disconnection from others” (Mayer, 1993)
Indifference toward people’s suffering, devaluation of people generally
Intolerant of criticism (e.g., suppressing dissent)
Grandiose sense of national entitlement
135
Summary & conclusions
Leadership plays a central part in understanding group behavior.
A lot of research has illustrated the complexity of leadership.
Leadership as person, role, & situation.
Literature provides some support for the role of individual differences–Appear to be key skill and traits
for associated with effective leadership
136
Summary & conclusions
Leader as an active, flexible pursuer of vision who influences others towards achievement of vision.
No one style of leadership is always the preferred leadership style.
Leadership is not value- & culture-bound.
Leadership may not be necessary given the right conditions.
137
Summary & conclusions
Humans gradually developed means of transferring power without violence
Restricting power is one great achievement of human culture
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
