Inside groups and teams

Transcript

SoheeA clinic's leadership team meets to choose a new scheduling system. The director opens by saying which one she loves. The team is close, they've worked together for years, and nobody wants to rock the boat.

RyanOne manager has read some worrying reviews of that system. She says nothing. Everyone nods. The vote is unanimous.

SoheeAnd six months later, the system is a disaster, and several people admit they had doubts all along.

RyanWelcome to EPPP Prep, the podcast. I'm Ryan.

SoheeI'm Sohee. Today we're inside groups: why smart people decide badly together, why some people coast on a team, and how teams grow up over time.

RyanThat clinic story is groupthink. The OpenStax psychology textbook defines groupthink as the modification of the opinions of members of a group to align with what they believe is the group consensus. The term comes from Janis, in 1972.

SoheeAnd the textbook says groupthink can hinder opposing trains of thought, and that eliminating diverse opinions contributes to faulty decisions.

RyanThe causes matter, because the textbook says knowing them makes groupthink preventable. First, high cohesion. When a group has a strong sense of connection, keeping harmony can become more important than making sound decisions.

SoheeSecond, a directive leader who makes their opinions known. That discourages members from disagreeing. Our clinic director did exactly that.

RyanAnd third, isolation. A group cut off from alternative or new viewpoints is more prone to groupthink.

SoheeThen the symptoms, which often show up as answer choices. Seeing the group as invulnerable, as if it can do no wrong. Believing the group is morally correct. Self-censorship, like withholding information to avoid disrupting the consensus.

RyanQuashing dissenting members' opinions. Shielding the leader from dissenting views. An illusion of unanimity. And stereotypes or negative attitudes toward the out-group, or toward people with differing views.

SoheeOur silent manager was self-censoring. And the unanimous vote was an illusion of unanimity.

RyanThe textbook's summary table puts it in one line. Groupthink is the tendency to prioritize group cohesion over critical thinking that might lead to poor decision making, and it's more likely when there's perceived unanimity.

SoheeThat's a good one-line definition to memorize.

RyanSo how do you prevent it? The textbook lists strategies: seek outside opinions, vote in private, have the leader withhold their position until everyone else has spoken, research all viewpoints, weigh the costs and benefits of every option, and develop a contingency plan.

SoheePause and think. You're the director next time. What two changes would most directly have protected that meeting?

RyanHold back your own preference until everyone has spoken, and let people vote privately. Those target the directive leader and the pressure of public agreement.

SoheeNow a cousin that the exam loves to contrast with groupthink. Group polarization, described by Teger and Pruitt in 1967.

RyanGroup polarization is the strengthening of a group's original attitude after discussing views within the group. If the group leaned toward a view, after discussion it endorses that view even more strongly. If it leaned against, it opposes even more strongly.

SoheeThe textbook's examples include political conventions, where people back party platforms in the group that they'd decline to support alone. And it notes that people can self-select media that match their views, so they rarely meet opposing viewpoints, which strengthens their own perspective over time.

RyanSo here's the distinction. Groupthink is about pressure toward consensus and suppressed dissent, leading to a poor decision. Polarization is about direction and intensity. The group ends up more extreme in the way it was already leaning.

SoheePause and think. A jury starts deliberations mildly leaning toward a large damages award. After hours of discussion, they award even more than any juror first suggested. What's that?

RyanGroup polarization. The initial leaning got stronger through discussion.

SoheeOne more group trap. Social traps. Situations where individuals or groups act in ways that aren't in their best interest and may have negative long-term consequences. And once established, a social trap is very hard to escape.

RyanThe textbook's example is the nuclear arms race after World War II. Having nuclear weapons wasn't in the best interest of either the United States or the Soviet Union, but once the race began, each felt it had to keep producing weapons to protect itself.

SoheeNow, the person who coasts on the team. Social loafing. A reduction in individual output on tasks where contributions are pooled. Because individual efforts aren't evaluated, people can become less motivated.

RyanAnd the research tells us when it's less likely. Karau and Williams, and Simms and Nichols, reviewed the work. Loafing can be reduced if people know their work will be assessed by a manager or instructor, or if members must complete self-evaluations.

SoheeSo the fix is making individual contributions visible.

RyanThere's also a study on how groups are formed. Harding, in 2018, compared student groups that self-selected with groups formed by flocking, which means assigning students with similar schedules and motivations. The flocked groups reported less free riding and did better on their group assignments.

SoheeSo even how a group is put together matters.

RyanExactly. And there are moderators. In student work groups, loafing becomes more likely as the group gets larger. And Karau and Williams found that women and participants from collectivistic cultures were less likely to loaf, possibly because of their group orientation.

SoheeHere's a subtle point from the textbook. Its summary table says social loafing causes performance to decline on easy tasks. When the task is complex and difficult, the opposite of social loafing occurs. Many people feel their group needs their input.

RyanThen deindividuation. Situations where a person may feel anonymous, and so feels less accountable and has a reduced sense of self when among others.

SoheeIt's often pointed to in cases of mob or riot-like behavior. But the textbook is careful here. Research on deindividuation's role in such behavior has produced inconsistent results.

RyanSo an exam distinction: social loafing is less effort because my contribution can't be identified. Deindividuation is reduced accountability and sense of self because I feel anonymous.

SoheeNow let's take all this into the workplace, where teams are everywhere. The textbook says many organizations delegate work to teams that bring together diverse skills, experience and expertise. But teams don't always deliver greater productivity.

RyanWhy do some teams struggle? Teams can hide members who aren't working, which is social loafing. They can communicate poorly. They can make poor decisions due to conformity effects. And they can have conflict.

SoheeAnd there's something called the team halo effect. Teams are given credit for their successes, but individuals within a team are blamed for team failures.

RyanThe textbook also describes types of teams. Problem resolution teams solve a particular problem. Creative teams develop innovative possibilities. Tactical teams carry out a well-defined plan, like a SWAT team. And virtual teams connect geographically separated people through digital technology.

SoheeAnd diversity can matter. In one study by Hoogendoorn and colleagues, gender-balanced business school project teams performed better on sales and profits than teams made up mostly of men.

RyanFinally, how teams develop. The OpenStax organizational behavior textbook describes Bruce Tuckman's model from 1965. Four stages: forming, storming, norming and performing. He added a fifth, adjourning, in 1977, for when a team disbands.

SoheeForming is the polite stage. Members focus on similarities and look to the leader for structure and direction.

RyanStorming is the win-lose stage. Members vie for leadership and test group processes, and attitudes can turn negative, with frustration about goals and progress.

SoheeNorming is when the team starts working well together. They establish ground rules and boundaries, buy into group goals, and share responsibility.

RyanAnd performing is when the team is self-directed and needs little management direction, with confidence and enthusiasm.

SoheeAnd here's the realistic part. The stages aren't linear. Adding a new member, or introducing a confusing new task, can send a team back to an earlier stage.

RyanSo if your study group suddenly starts bickering after someone new joins, that's not failure. That's storming again.

SoheeLet's recap. Groupthink: aligning with perceived consensus. Caused by cohesion, a directive leader and isolation. Prevented by outside opinions, private votes and a leader who speaks last.

RyanGroup polarization: discussion makes a group more extreme in its original direction. Social traps: patterns against everyone's long-term interest that are hard to escape.

SoheeSocial loafing: less effort when contributions are pooled, reduced by individual evaluation, and less common among women and in collectivistic cultures. Deindividuation: anonymity, less accountability, and inconsistent evidence.

RyanTeams: watch for loafing, poor communication, conformity and conflict, and remember the team halo effect. Tuckman: forming, storming, norming, performing, then adjourning.

SoheeIf you're studying with others, these ideas are useful right now. Make each person's part visible, invite disagreement, and expect a little storming. Then get to performing.

RyanThanks for listening to EPPP Prep. Try a few group process questions next.

Loading the read-along timings…